The Auditory Processing Battery: Survey of Common Practices

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (02) ◽  
pp. 093-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana C. Emanuel

A survey of auditory processing (AP) diagnostic practices was mailed to all licensed audiologists in the State of Maryland and sent as an electronic mail attachment to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and Educational Audiology Association Internet forums. Common AP protocols (25 from the Internet, 28 from audiologists in Maryland) included requiring basic audiologic testing, using questionnaires, and administering dichotic listening, monaural low-redundancy speech, temporal processing, and electrophysiologic tests. Some audiologists also administer binaural interaction, attention, memory, and speech-language/psychological/educational tests and incorporate a classroom observation. The various AP batteries presently administered appear to be based on the availability of AP tests with well-documented normative data. Resources for obtaining AP tests are listed.

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182199003
Author(s):  
Andy J Kim ◽  
David S Lee ◽  
Brian A Anderson

Previously reward-associated stimuli have consistently been shown to involuntarily capture attention in the visual domain. Although previously reward-associated but currently task-irrelevant sounds have also been shown to interfere with visual processing, it remains unclear whether such stimuli can interfere with the processing of task-relevant auditory information. To address this question, we modified a dichotic listening task to measure interference from task-irrelevant but previously reward-associated sounds. In a training phase, participants were simultaneously presented with a spoken letter and number in different auditory streams and learned to associate the correct identification of each of three letters with high, low, and no monetary reward, respectively. In a subsequent test phase, participants were again presented with the same auditory stimuli but were instead instructed to report the number while ignoring spoken letters. In both the training and test phases, response time measures demonstrated that attention was biased in favour of the auditory stimulus associated with high value. Our findings demonstrate that attention can be biased towards learned reward cues in the auditory domain, interfering with goal-directed auditory processing.


2017 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tone Stokkereit Mattsson ◽  
Turid Follestad ◽  
Stein Andersson ◽  
Ola Lind ◽  
Jon Øygarden ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (04) ◽  
pp. e399-e406
Author(s):  
Joyce Miranda Santiago ◽  
Cyntia Barbosa Laureano Luiz ◽  
Michele Garcia ◽  
Daniela Gil

Abstract Introduction The auditory structures of the brainstem are involved in binaural interaction, which contributes to sound location and auditory figure-background perception. Objective To investigate the performance of young adults in the masking level difference (MLD) test, brainstem auditory-evoked potentials (BAEPs) with click stimulus, and frequency-following response (FFR), as well as to verify the correlation between the findings, considering the topographic origin of the components of these procedures. Methods A total of 20 female subjects between 18 and 30 years of age, with normal hearing and no complaints concerning central auditory processing underwent a basic audiological evaluation, as well as the MLD test, BAEP and FFR. Results The mean result on the MLD test was of 10.70 dB. There was a statistically significant difference in the absolute latencies of waves I, III and V in the BAEPs of the ears. A change in the FFR characterized by the absence of the C, E and F waves was noticed. There was a statistically significant difference in the positive correlation of wave V in the BAEPs with the MLD. There was a statistically significant difference in the positive correlation of the mean MLD and the V, A and F components of the FFR. Conclusion The mean MLD was adequate. In the BAEPs, we observed that the click stimulus transmission occurred faster in the right ear. The FFR showed absence of some components. The mean MLD correlated positively with the BAEPs and FFR.


2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (01) ◽  
pp. 034-053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Martin ◽  
James Jerger ◽  
Jyutika Mehta

Dichotic listening (DL) procedures are commonly employed in the evaluation of auditory processing in children. Review of the various clinical tests reveals considerable diversity in both the signals employed and their mode of administration. The extent to which other non auditory-specific factors influence the test outcome is often difficult to determine. Individual differences in memory, attention, facility with test stimuli, and report strategy are always of potential concern in the interpretation of results.In the present study, we examined behavioral and electrophysiological (ERP) responses for 20 children during two DL tasks. Two groups of children were evaluated. One group was comprised of children who showed substantial ear differences on clinical measures of DL; the other group showed no such deficits and served as age-matched controls. In one of the DL tasks, participants monitored dichotic stimuli using the divided-attention (unfocused) mode. In the other DL task, a directed-attention (focused) mode was employed. Both tasks involved simple "same-different" judgments for real words presented in a basic reference-probe paradigm. We purposefully sought an easy DL task in order to minimize the number of extra-auditory factors influencing their performance. For control purposes, a diotic procedure involving the same stimuli was also included.Results showed that the amplitude of the elicited late-positive component (LPC) was smaller and prolonged in latency for the group of poor listeners as compared to the control group. This finding occurred only when dichotic stimuli were presented in the divided-attention mode. When participants directed their attention to a single side, or when listening in a diotic mode, the LPC for both groups was more similar. Group differences in the N400 component were apparent for both listening tasks. Results are discussed in relation to an inability of some children to inhibit processing of unattended auditory information. Implications for the clinical administration of dichotic listening tests are also discussed. Los procedimientos de Audición Dicótica (DL) son comúnmente empleados en la evaluación del procesamiento auditivo en niños. La revisión de varias pruebas clínicas revela una diversidad considerable tanto en las señales empleadas como en su modo de administración. En qué grado otros factores no específicos de la audición influyen en los resultados de las pruebas es a menudo difícil de determinar. Las diferencias individuales en memoria, atención, facilidad con los estímulos de la prueba y la estrategia de reporte, tienen siempre influencia potencial en la interpretación de los resultados. En el presente estudio, examinamos respuestas conductuales y electrofisiológicas (ERP) en 20 niños con dos tareas de DL. Se evaluaron dos grupos de niños. Un grupo estaba constituido por niños que mostraban diferencias sustanciales entre los oídos en las mediciones clínicas de la DL; el otro grupo no mostró tal déficit y sirvieron como controles pareados por edad. En una de las tareas de DL, los participantes monitorearon estímulos dicóticos utilizando el modo de atención dividida (no concentrada). En la otra tarea de DL, se empleó un modo de atención dirigida (concentrada). Ambas tareas involucraron juicios simples de "igual-diferente" para palabras reales presentadas en un paradigma de sondeo de diferencia básica. A propósito, buscamos una tarea de DL fácil, para minimizar el número de factores extra-auditivos que influían en el desempeño. Para propósitos de control, se incluyó también un procedimiento diótico que utilizara los mismos estímulos. Los resultados muestran que la amplitud del componente positivo tardío (LPC) generado era más pequeña y más prolongada en latencia para el grupo de oyentes pobres comparado con el grupo control. Este hallazgo tuvo lugar sólo cuando se presentaron estímulos dicóticos en el modo de atención dividida. Cuando los participantes dirigieron su atención a un sólo lado, o cuando escucharon en un modo diótico, el LPC para ambos grupos fue similar. Las diferencias de grupo en el componente N400 fueron aparentes para ambas tareas de audición. Se discuten los resultados en relación con la incapacidad de algunos niños de inhibir el procesamiento de información auditiva a la que no se le está prestando atención. Se discuten las implicaciones para la administración clínicas de pruebas de audición dicótica.


2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (04) ◽  
pp. 384-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yael Henkin ◽  
Yifat Yaar-Soffer ◽  
Lihi Givon ◽  
Minka Hildesheimer

Background: Integration of information presented to the two ears has been shown to manifest in binaural interaction components (BICs) that occur along the ascending auditory pathways. In humans, BICs have been studied predominantly at the brainstem and thalamocortical levels; however, understanding of higher cortically driven mechanisms of binaural hearing is limited. Purpose: To explore whether BICs are evident in auditory event-related potentials (AERPs) during the advanced perceptual and postperceptual stages of cortical processing. Research Design: The AERPs N1, P3, and a late negative component (LNC) were recorded from multiple site electrodes while participants performed an oddball discrimination task that consisted of natural speech syllables (/ka/ vs. /ta/) that differed by place-of-articulation. Participants were instructed to respond to the target stimulus (/ta/) while performing the task in three listening conditions: monaural right, monaural left, and binaural. Study Sample: Fifteen (21–32 yr) young adults (6 females) with normal hearing sensitivity. Data Collection and Analysis: By subtracting the response to target stimuli elicited in the binaural condition from the sum of responses elicited in the monaural right and left conditions, the BIC waveform was derived and the latencies and amplitudes of the components were measured. The maximal interaction was calculated by dividing BIC amplitude by the summed right and left response amplitudes. In addition, the latencies and amplitudes of the AERPs to target stimuli elicited in the monaural right, monaural left, and binaural listening conditions were measured and subjected to analysis of variance with repeated measures testing the effect of listening condition and laterality. Results: Three consecutive BICs were identified at a mean latency of 129, 406, and 554 msec, and were labeled N1-BIC, P3-BIC, and LNC-BIC, respectively. Maximal interaction increased significantly with progression of auditory processing from perceptual to postperceptual stages and amounted to 51%, 55%, and 75% of the sum of monaural responses for N1-BIC, P3-BIC, and LNC-BIC, respectively. Binaural interaction manifested in a decrease of the binaural response compared to the sum of monaural responses. Furthermore, listening condition affected P3 latency only, whereas laterality effects manifested in enhanced N1 amplitudes at the left (T3) vs. right (T4) scalp electrode and in a greater left–right amplitude difference in the right compared to left listening condition. Conclusions: The current AERP data provides evidence for the occurrence of cortical BICs during perceptual and postperceptual stages, presumably reflecting ongoing integration of information presented to the two ears at the final stages of auditory processing. Increasing binaural interaction with the progression of the auditory processing sequence (N1 to LNC) may support the notion that cortical BICs reflect inherited interactions from preceding stages of upstream processing together with discrete cortical neural activity involved in binaural processing. Clinically, an objective measure of cortical binaural processing has the potential of becoming an appealing neural correlate of binaural behavioral performance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document