Don’t Wait to Diagnose Auditory Processing Disorder

ASHA Leader ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 34-35
Author(s):  
Zhanneta Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder

scholarly journals Central Auditory Processing and Cognitive Functions in Children

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadja Cristina Furtado Back ◽  
Ana Chrystina de Souza Crippa ◽  
Tatiana Izabelle Jaworski de Sá Riechi ◽  
Liliane Desgualdo Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Executive Function ◽  
Cognitive Deficits ◽  
Cognitive Functions ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Auditory Attention ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Behavior Rating ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Behavior Rating Inventory ◽  
And Behavior

Abstract Introduction Nowadays, there is no consensus on whether central auditory processing disorder is a primary or a secondary deficit to other cognitive deficits. A better understanding of the association between cognitive functions and central auditory skills may help elucidate this dilemma. Objective To investigate possible associations between auditory abilities and cognitive functions in schoolchildren. Methods Fifty-eight schoolchildren, aged between 8 years and 0 months old and 11 years and 11 months old, who underwent the following tests: masking level difference, gaps in noise, pitch pattern sequence test, dichotic digits test, sustained auditory attention ability test, Wechsler intelligence scale for children – IV, junior Hayling test, five digits test, and behavior rating inventory of executive function. Results Significant correlations were found between the hearing ability of temporal resolution and executive functions, temporal ordering/sequencing, binaural integration and separation, and sustained auditory attention, operational memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility; binaural integration was also associated with intelligence. The statistically significant positive correlation found between the ability of binaural interaction and the components of emotional control and behavior regulation of the behavior rating inventory of executive function was unexpected. Conclusion The associations identified reinforce the complexity of the tasks involved in the evaluation of central auditory processing and the need for multidisciplinary evaluation for the differential diagnosis of auditory processing disorder. Confirmation of the presence or absence of comorbidities between different disorders allows directing the therapeutic behaviors and reducing the impact of possible auditory and/or cognitive deficits in the different daily life situations of children.

An Opinion on the Assessment of People Who May Have an Auditory Processing Disorder

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (02) ◽  
pp. 097-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey Dillon ◽  
Sharon Cameron ◽  
Helen Glyde ◽  
Wayne Wilson ◽  
Dani Tomlin
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Specific Form ◽  
Test Battery ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Hierarchical Approach ◽  
Clinical Efficiency ◽  
Impaired Ability ◽  
The Individual

We need to rethink how we assess auditory processing disorder (APD). The current use of test batteries, while necessary and well accepted, is at risk of failing as the size of these batteries increases. To counter the statistical, fatigue, and clinical efficiency problems of large test batteries, we propose a hierarchical approach to APD assessment. This begins with an overall test of listening difficulty in which performance is measurably affected for anyone with an impaired ability to understand speech in difficult listening conditions. It proceeds with a master test battery containing a small number of single tests, each of which assesses a different group of skills necessary for understanding speech in difficult listening conditions. It ends with a detailed test battery, where the individual tests administered from this battery are only those that differentiate the skills assessed by the failed test(s) from the master test battery, so that the specific form of APD can be diagnosed. An example of how hierarchical interpretation of test results could be performed is illustrated using the Listening in Spatialized Noise—Sentences test (LiSN-S). Although consideration of what abilities fall within the realm of auditory processing should remain an important issue for research, we argue that patients will be best served by focusing on whether they have difficulty understanding speech, identifying the specific characteristics of this difficulty, and specifically remediating and/or managing those characteristics.

The Importance of Modality Specificity in Diagnosing Central Auditory Processing Disorder

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony T. Cacace ◽  
Dennis J. McFarland
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Central Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Modality Specificity

Purpose: This article argues for the use of modality specificity as a unifying framework by which to conceptualize and diagnose central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). The intent is to generate dialogue and critical discussion in this area of study. Method: Research in the cognitive, behavioral, and neural sciences that relates to the concept of modality specificity was reviewed and synthesized. Results: Modality specificity has a long history as an organizing construct within a diverse collection of mainstream scientific disciplines. The principle of modality specificity was contrasted with the unimodal inclusive framework, which holds that auditory tests alone are sufficient to make the CAPD diagnosis. Evidence from a large body of data demonstrated that the unimodal framework was unable to delineate modality-specific processes from more generalized dysfunction; it lacked discriminant validity and resulted in an incomplete assessment. Consequently, any hypothetical model resulting from incomplete assessments or potential therapies that are based on indeterminate diagnoses are themselves questionable, and caution should be used in their application. Conclusions: Improving specificity of diagnosis is an imperative core issue to the area of CAPD. Without specificity, the concept has little explanatory power. Because of serious flaws in concept and design, the unimodal inclusive framework should be abandoned in favor of a more valid approach that uses modality specificity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document