scholarly journals Auditory Training Among Older Adults With Alzheimer Disease and Central Auditory Processing Disorder

Author(s):  
Fereshteh Bagheri ◽  
Mohammad Rezaei ◽  
Vahid Rashedi
2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 678-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Cameron ◽  
Harvey Dillon

Background: The LiSN & Learn auditory training software was developed specifically to improve binaural processing skills in children with suspected central auditory processing disorder who were diagnosed as having a spatial processing disorder (SPD). SPD is defined here as a condition whereby individuals are deficient in their ability to use binaural cues to selectively attend to sounds arriving from one direction while simultaneously suppressing sounds arriving from another. As a result, children with SPD have difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments, such as in the classroom. Purpose: To develop and evaluate the LiSN & Learn auditory training software for children diagnosed with the Listening in Spatialized Noise—Sentences Test (LiSN-S) as having an SPD. The LiSN-S is an adaptive speech-in-noise test designed to differentially diagnose spatial and pitch-processing deficits in children with suspected central auditory processing disorder. Study Sample: Participants were nine children (aged between 6 yr, 9 mo, and 11 yr, 4 mo) who performed outside normal limits on the LiSN-S. Research Design: In a pre–post study of treatment outcomes, participants trained on the LiSN & Learn for 15 min per day for 12 weeks. Participants acted as their own control. Participants were assessed on the LiSN-S, as well as tests of attention and memory and a self-report questionnaire of listening ability. Performance on all tasks was reassessed after 3 mo where no further training occurred. Intervention: The LiSN & Learn produces a three-dimensional auditory environment under headphones on the user's home computer. The child's task was to identify a word from a target sentence presented in background noise. A weighted up-down adaptive procedure was used to adjust the signal level of the target based on the participant's response. Results: On average, speech reception thresholds on the LiSN & Learn improved by 10 dB over the course of training. As hypothesized, there were significant improvements in posttraining performance on the LiSN-S conditions where the target and distracter stimuli are spatially separated and which specifically evaluate binaural processing ability (p ranging from <.003 to .0001, η2 ranging from 0.694 to 0.873). In contrast, there was no improvement on the LiSN-S control conditions where the target and distracter stimuli emanate from the same direction (p ranging from .07 to .86, η2 ranging from 0.362 to 0.004). Significant improvements were found posttraining on measures of memory, on one measure of attention, and on self-reported ratings of listening ability. There were no significant differences between post- and 3 mo posttraining scores on any of the assessment tools. Conclusions: The initial LiSN & Learn study has shown that children as young as 6 yr of age are able to complete the training (although some coaxing was needed in a minority of cases). Both parents and children have reported benefits from the training, and feedback from the trial has resulted in extra features being added to the software. In order to further evaluate the efficacy of LiSN & Learn to remediate binaural processing deficits in children a clinical trial is currently under way utilizing a randomized blinded control group design.


Author(s):  
Amir Arami ◽  
Farzaneh Zamiri Abdollahi ◽  
Mamak Joulaie

Background: Subjects with (central) auditory processing disorder (C)APD may manifest a range of complaints including difficulty in spee­ch perception in noise, following directions, and discrimination of similar speech sounds. Other disorders may also have the same behavioral manifestations. The Case: Here we present an 8-year-old boy who was misdiagnosed and mismanaged as a child with learning disability. His speech, language and cognition problems at initial eva­luation included semantic problem, a short len­gth of speech, phonological sound disorder, and attention disorder. He showed abnormality in the dichotic digits test with free recall approach and monaural selective auditory attention test. Based on his performance and test results, he was suffering from (C)APD especially in dicho­tic listening and speech perception in com­petition. It was suggested that binaural hearing training with differential interaural intensity, informal localization training including loca­lization clock, and auditory training in noise be added to his classic auditory training program.  Conclusion: Studying this subject was impor­tant because (C)APD diagnosis needs a team approach. Evidently, the parents, teacher and speech-language pathologist (SLP) did not seek a central auditory processing evaluations early enough but some of his behaviors could poten­tially be a red flag for (C)APD and could guide SLPs to refer him for central auditory testing. As we may not be able to evaluate central auditory processing in the early childhood, iden­tifying the possible (C)APD signs by a SLP may help them to plan a more suitable program even before reaching a definite diagnosis.


2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony T. Cacace ◽  
Dennis J. McFarland

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