The Listening in Spatialized Noise Test: An Auditory Processing Disorder Study

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (05) ◽  
pp. 306-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Cameron ◽  
Harvey Dillon ◽  
Philip Newall

The Listening in Spatialized Noise test (LISN)® produces a virtual three-dimensional auditory environment under headphones. Various measures assess the extent to which either spatial, vocal, or spatial and vocal cues combined increase a listener's ability to comprehend a target story in the presence of distracter sentences, without being affected by differences between participants in variables such as linguistic skills. Ten children at risk for auditory processing disorder (APD group) were assessed on the LISN, as well as a traditional APD test battery. The APD group performed significantly more poorly on all LISN measures than 48 age-matched controls. On the spatial advantage measure, the APD group achieved a mean advantage of only 3.7 dB when the distracters were spatially separated from the target by ±90°, compared to 10.0 dB for the controls—the 6.3 dB difference significant at p < 0.000001, with nine children scoring outside the normal range. The LISN was considered a promising addition to an APD test battery.

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (02) ◽  
pp. 097-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey Dillon ◽  
Sharon Cameron ◽  
Helen Glyde ◽  
Wayne Wilson ◽  
Dani Tomlin

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.


1997 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria F. Emerson ◽  
Kami K. Crandall ◽  
J. Anthony Seikel ◽  
Gail D. Chermak

The SCAN: A Screening Test for Auditory Processing Disorders was designed for administration in a quiet school test setting, although it is also administered by audiologists in the audiometric booth in a study seeking to screen for the presence of central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) in children with a history of otitis media (OM), 14 children with a history of OM and an equal number without this risk factor for CAPD (non-OM) were tested in a school setting using the SCAN and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R). Forty-three percent of the OM group failed the SCAN, as did 29% of the non-OM group; hence, the groups were not differentiated using the SCAN. To prove the effects of environment on test results, a second experiment was conducted in which six additional children were administered the SCAN in both a school setting and an audiometric test booth. Individual data revealed that subjects performed more poorly on the SCAN administered in the school setting than in audiometric test booth. The marked difference in SCAN scores between the two environments raises methodological concerns regarding the use of this instrument for indentification of children at risk for central auditory processing disorders.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Akshay R. Maggu ◽  
Tobias Overath

Purpose In the field of audiology, auditory processing disorder (APD) continues to be a topic of ongoing debate for clinicians and scientists alike, both in terms of theory and clinical practice. In the current viewpoint, we first lay out the main issues that are central to the controversy surrounding APD, and then suggest a framework toward their resolution. Method The current viewpoint is informed by reviewing existing studies in the field of APD to better understand the issues contributing to the controversies in APD. Results We found that, within the current definition of APD, the two main issues that make the APD diagnosis controversial are (a) comorbidity with other disorders and (b) the lack of domain specificity. These issues remain unresolved, especially with the use of the existing behavioral APD test batteries. In this viewpoint, we shed light on how they can be mitigated by implementing the administration of an objective, physiological test battery. Conclusions By administering an objective test battery, as proposed in this viewpoint, we believe that it will be possible to achieve a higher degree of specificity to the auditory domain that will not only contribute towards clinical practice but also contribute towards strengthening APD as a theoretical construct.


2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (8) ◽  
pp. 538-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Raben Pedersen ◽  
Berit Dahl-Hansen ◽  
Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard ◽  
Christian Brandt

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patti M. Johnstone

Abstract Audiologists are seeking evidence to guide clinical decision-making regarding the tests used to diagnose auditory processing disorder (APD) in children. Novel research paradigms using a population health framework hold promise in helping clinicians understand the prevalence, profile, and social underpinnings of APD in the general pediatric population. In addition, tests employing novel stimuli like speech-evoked auditory potentials or spatial and vocal cues may lead the way toward a new and more reliable APD test battery.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ronald L. Schow ◽  
Harvey Dillon ◽  
Jessica Hillam ◽  
Mary M. Whitaker ◽  
J. Anthony Seikel

Introduction There is need for greater understanding of tests used in assessing all aspects of auditory processing disorder (APD). This is important so that specific deficits can be identified and later remediated with the smallest possible test battery. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) recommends five areas/domains for behavioral assessment: (a) temporal, (b) binaural (dichotic) separation/integration, (c) monaural low redundancy, (d) binaural interaction/localization/lateralization, and (e) auditory discrimination. Multiple-factor studies support the first three domains, which are most often used for APD assessment and which can be measured in a test battery normed within the United States (Multiple Auditory Processing Assessment–2 [MAPA-2]). This study was designed to determine if factored results from children would clarify whether a behavioral test (Listening in Spatialized Noise–Sentences Test [LiSN-S]) would factor within one of the first three domains or be separate, possibly within the fourth domain, binaural interaction. Method Fifty-one 8- and 9-year-olds with normal development and normal otoscopy and hearing responses bilaterally from 500 to 4000 Hz at 20 dB HL were recruited. Two sets of APD tests were administered: MAPA-2 and LiSN-S. Results Results verified the expected three-factor structure for MAPA-2. LiSN-S did not factor within one of those three, suggesting that some processes involved in the LiSN-S tasks require interactions between the two ears different from those involved in dichotic perception and thus better belong in the ASHA binaural interaction/lateralization domain. Conclusions Auditory processing abilities are sufficiently independent of each other that test batteries spanning the first three ASHA domains are not sensitive to at least some abilities in the fourth domain. This additional factor evidence is helpful. Future research should examine the utility of measuring additional factors within APD in order to achieve the most efficient and comprehensive test battery.


2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (09) ◽  
pp. 691-700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyoko Nagao ◽  
Tammy Riegner ◽  
Jennifer Padilla ◽  
L. Ashleigh Greenwood ◽  
Jessica Loson ◽  
...  

Background: Although auditory processing disorder (APD) is a widely recognized impairment, its prevalence and demographic characteristics are not precisely known in the pediatric population. Purpose: To examine the demographic characteristics of children diagnosed with APD at a tertiary health-care facility and the prevalence of pediatric APD. Research Design: A cross-sectional study. Study Sample: A total of 243 children (149 boys and 94 girls) who were referred to the Nemours Audiology Clinics in the Delaware Valley for an APD evaluation. The mean ages were 9.8 yr for boys and 9.7 yr for girls. Out of 243 children referred for an APD evaluation, 94 children exhibited one or more auditory processing deficits in the areas of auditory closure, auditory figure ground, binaural integration, binaural separation, and temporal processing. Data Collection and Analysis: Demographic and audiological data, clinical history (parental reports on prenatal and postnatal information, birth weight and height, medical and developmental history, otologic/audiological history, education information, behavioral characteristics), and results of the APD test battery were retrospectively obtained from the electronic medical records of each participant. The prevalence of APD was estimated using the total number of students enrolled in the same school attended by each participant in the 2011 academic year as cohort. Results: The prevalence of APD was 1.94 per 1,000 children in this study. We found that prevalence of APD among the children who attended private schools was more than two times higher than the children who attended public schools. The results also revealed that the majority of children referred to the clinics were Caucasian (85.6%), whereas minority groups were underrepresented for this geographical area with only 3.7% of Hispanic or Latino children and 5.8% of Black or African American children. Conclusions: The estimated prevalence of APD in the current study was lower than the previously published estimates. The difference might be due to the diagnosis criteria of APD among studies as well as the use of school enrollment number as the referenced population to estimate prevalence in our study. We also found a significant difference in APD prevalence depending on the school types. The findings of higher prevalence rates among the children attending private schools and higher proportion of Caucasians children referred for APD evaluation suggest that more children among those in public schools and in the Hispanic and African American groups should have been referred for an APD evaluation. Hence, the current estimate is likely an underestimate of the actual APD prevalence. The low percentage of Hispanic or African American children referred to the clinic for APD evaluations may be related to the socioeconomic status and linguistic differences among the concerned families. The results of this study raise the importance of adapting the APD test battery for children with a different linguistic background as well as increasing awareness of available clinical resources to all families in our area.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document