scholarly journals Features of remedial work with disorders of speech perception by ear

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 248-251
Author(s):  
Tatiana Grigorievna Vizel

The paper touches upon the problem of auditory agnosia, and first of all, speech. The author discusses its place in the series of defects of auditory perception, the output of a specific hierarchy from hearing loss to violations of the understanding of speech phonetically. It is emphasized that the children mechanisms, for which speech auditory agnosia takes place, may have origins in the inferiority of the processes of perception of nonverbal sounds. A special place is given to the problems of differential diagnostics of various abnormalities of auditory perception as well as to the fact that the absence of ones own articulated speech in a child directly depends on how well he perceives the speech of others. Thus, it has been affirmed that children articulatory apraxia is not primary. This must be considered in the construction of correctional education programs. Unlike primary hearing loss, the symptoms of speech auditory agnosia can be eliminated or reduced as a measure due to the use of special corrective techniques.

2006 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric L. Jensen ◽  
Gary E. Reed

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Moore ◽  
Oliver Zobay ◽  
Melanie A. Ferguson

ABSTRACTObjectives‘Minimal’ and ‘mild’ hearing loss are the most common but least understood forms of hearing loss in children. Children with better ear hearing level as low as 30 dB HL have a global language impairment and, according to the World Health Organization, a “disabling level of hearing loss”. We examined in a population of 6 - 11 year olds how hearing level ≤ 40.0 dB HL (1 and 4 kHz pure tone average, PTA, threshold) related to auditory perception, cognition and communication.DesignSchool children (n=1638) were recruited in four centres across the UK. They completed a battery of hearing (audiometry, filter width, temporal envelope, speech-in-noise) and cognitive (IQ, attention, verbal memory, receptive language, reading) tests. Caregivers assessed their children’s communication and listening skills. Children included in this study (702 male; 752 female) had four reliable tone thresholds (1, 4 kHz each ear), and no caregiver reported medical or intellectual disorder. Normal hearing children (n=1124, 77.1%) had all four thresholds and PTA < 15 dB HL. Children with ≥ 15 dB HL for at least one threshold, and PTA < 20 dB (n=245, 16.8%) had Minimal hearing loss. Children with 20 ≤ PTA < 40 dB HL (n=88, 6.0%) had Mild hearing loss. Interaural Asymmetric hearing loss (|Left PTA – Right PTA| ≥ 10 dB) was found in 28.9% of those with Minimal and 39.8% of those with Mild hearing loss.ResultsSpeech perception in noise, indexed by VCV pseudoword repetition in speech modulated noise, was impaired in children with Minimal and Mild hearing loss, relative to Normal hearing children. Effect size was largest (d=0.63) in Asymmetric Mild hearing loss and smallest (d=0.21) in Symmetric Minimal hearing loss. Spectral (filter width) and temporal (backward masking) perception were impaired in children with both forms of hearing loss, but supra-threshold perception generally related only weakly to PTA. Speech-in-noise (nonsense syllables) and language (pseudoword repetition) were also impaired in both forms of hearing loss and correlated more strongly with PTA. Children with Mild hearing loss were additionally impaired in working memory (digit span) and reading, and generally performed more poorly than those with Minimal loss. Asymmetric hearing loss produced as much impairment overall on both auditory and cognitive tasks as Symmetric hearing loss. Nonverbal IQ, attention and caregiver-rated listening and communication were not significantly impaired in children with hearing loss. Modelling suggested that 15 dB HL is objectively an appropriate lower audibility limit for diagnosis of hearing loss.ConclusionsHearing loss between 15 - 30 dB PTA is, at ~20%, much more prevalent in 6-11 y.o. children than most current estimates. Key aspects of auditory and cognitive skills are impaired in both symmetric and asymmetric minimal and mild hearing loss. Hearing loss < 30 dB HL is most closely related to speech perception in noise, and to cognitive abilities underpinning language and reading. The results suggest wider use of speech-in-noise measures to diagnose and assess management of hearing loss and reduction of the clinical hearing loss threshold for children to 15 dB HL.


2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 91-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Pizarek ◽  
Valeriy Shafiro ◽  
Patricia McCarthy

Computerized auditory training (CAT) is a convenient, low-cost approach to improving communication of individuals with hearing loss or other communicative disorders. A number of CAT programs are being marketed to patients and audiologists. The present literature review is an examination of evidence for the effectiveness of CAT in improving speech perception in adults with hearing impairments. Six current CAT programs, used in 9 published studies, were reviewed. In all 9 studies, some benefit of CAT for speech perception was demonstrated. Although these results are encouraging, the overall quality of available evidence remains low, and many programs currently on the market have not yet been evaluated. Thus, caution is needed when selecting CAT programs for specific patients. It is hoped that future researchers will (a) examine a greater number of CAT programs using more rigorous experimental designs, (b) determine which program features and training regimens are most effective, and (c) indicate which patients may benefit from CAT the most.


2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (01) ◽  
pp. 058-067 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel R. Atcherson ◽  
Lisa Lucks Mendel ◽  
Wesley J. Baltimore ◽  
Chhayakanta Patro ◽  
Sungmin Lee ◽  
...  

AbstractIt is generally well known that speech perception is often improved with integrated audiovisual input whether in quiet or in noise. In many health-care environments, however, conventional surgical masks block visual access to the mouth and obscure other potential facial cues. In addition, these environments can be noisy. Although these masks may not alter the acoustic properties, the presence of noise in addition to the lack of visual input can have a deleterious effect on speech understanding. A transparent (“see-through”) surgical mask may help to overcome this issue.To compare the effect of noise and various visual input conditions on speech understanding for listeners with normal hearing (NH) and hearing impairment using different surgical masks.Participants were assigned to one of three groups based on hearing sensitivity in this quasi-experimental, cross-sectional study.A total of 31 adults participated in this study: one talker, ten listeners with NH, ten listeners with moderate sensorineural hearing loss, and ten listeners with severe-to-profound hearing loss.Selected lists from the Connected Speech Test were digitally recorded with and without surgical masks and then presented to the listeners at 65 dB HL in five conditions against a background of four-talker babble (+10 dB SNR): without a mask (auditory only), without a mask (auditory and visual), with a transparent mask (auditory only), with a transparent mask (auditory and visual), and with a paper mask (auditory only).A significant difference was found in the spectral analyses of the speech stimuli with and without the masks; however, no more than ∼2 dB root mean square. Listeners with NH performed consistently well across all conditions. Both groups of listeners with hearing impairment benefitted from visual input from the transparent mask. The magnitude of improvement in speech perception in noise was greatest for the severe-to-profound group.Findings confirm improved speech perception performance in noise for listeners with hearing impairment when visual input is provided using a transparent surgical mask. Most importantly, the use of the transparent mask did not negatively affect speech perception performance in noise.


2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosamaria Santarelli ◽  
Pietro Scimemi ◽  
Marco Costantini ◽  
María Domínguez-Ruiz ◽  
Montserrat Rodríguez-Ballesteros ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document