Who is Right? A Word-Identification-in-Noise Test for Young Children Using Minimal Pair Distracters

Purpose: Many children have difficulties understanding speech. At present, there are few assessments that test for subtle impairments in speech perception with normative data from U.K. children. We present a new test that evaluates children's ability to identify target words in background noise by choosing between minimal pair alternatives that differ by a single articulatory phonetic feature. This task (a) is tailored to testing young children, but also readily applicable to adults; (b) has minimal memory demands; (c) adapts to the child's ability; and (d) does not require reading or verbal output. Method: We tested 155 children and young adults aged from 5 to 25 years on this new test of single word perception. Results: Speech-in-noise abilities in this particular task develop rapidly through childhood until they reach maturity at around 9 years of age. Conclusions: We make this test freely available and provide associated normative data. We hope that it will be useful to researchers and clinicians in the assessment of speech perception abilities in children who are hard of hearing or have developmental language disorder, dyslexia, or auditory processing disorder. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17155934

Implications for Early Diagnosis and Treatment in Schizophrenia Due to Correlation between Auditory Perceptual Deficits and Cognitive Impairment

It is indicated that auditory perception deficits are present in schizophrenia and related to formal thought disorder. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the association of auditory deficits with cognitive impairment in schizophrenia. An experimental group of 50 schizophrenia patients completed a battery of auditory processing evaluation and a neuropsychological battery of tests. Correlations between neuropsychological battery scores and auditory processing scores were examined. Cognitive impairment was correlated with auditory processing deficits in schizophrenia patients. All neuropsychological test scores were significantly correlated with at least one auditory processing test score. Our findings support the coexistence of auditory processing disorder, severe cognitive impairment, and formal thought disorder in a subgroup of schizophrenia patients. This may have important implications in schizophrenia research, as well as in early diagnosis and nonpharmacological treatment of the disorder.

Comment on Ahmmed (2021): The Search for Evidence-Based Auditory Processing Disorder Diagnostic Criteria

Purpose Ahmmed (2021) presented a study to advance the goal of an evidence-based diagnostic criteria for auditory processing disorder. We offer some cautions about the interpretation of these results, as well as suggestions for future strategies for developing evidence-based criteria for auditory processing disorder.

Combination of Comorbidities as a Reference Standard for Evaluating Auditory Processing Disorder: Response to the Letter to the Editor From Schow et al. (2021)

Purpose Concerns expressed by Schow et al. (2021) around the evidence-based diagnostic criteria suggested by Ahmmed (2021a) are addressed here. The use of combination of comorbidities as a reference standard for evaluating auditory processing tests is a valid strategy, consistent with the Research Domain Criteria framework from the National Institute of Mental Health as well as the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. The correlations between auditory processing tests and some comorbidities in Ahmmed (2021a) were significant at p < .01. The low sensitivity and specificity reported was not to be related to the principle of using comorbidities as a reference standard but due to the choice of comorbidities combined in the reference standard. Ahmmed (2021a) suggested the option of inclusion of other comorbidities in addition to language impairment and impaired manual dexterity in the reference standard. Visual processing impairment could be considered as the additional comorbidity to improve sensitivity and specificity of the approach suggested by Ahmmed (2021a).

Electrophysiological Screening for Children With Suspected Auditory Processing Disorder: A Systematic Review

Objective: This research aimed to provide evidence for the early identification and intervention of children at risk for auditory processing disorder (APD). Electrophysiological studies on children with suspected APDs were systematically reviewed to understand the different electrophysiological characteristics of children with suspected APDs.Methods: Computerized databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for retrieval of articles since the establishment of the database through May 18, 2020. Cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that evaluated the literature for the electrophysiological assessment of children with suspected APD were independently reviewed by two researchers for literature screening, literature quality assessment, and data extraction. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and 11 entries recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were used to evaluate the quality of the literature.Results: In accordance with the inclusion criteria, 14 articles were included. These articles involved 7 electrophysiological testing techniques: click-evoked auditory brainstem responses, frequency-following responses, the binaural interaction component of the auditory brainstem responses, the middle-latency response, cortical auditory evoked potential, mismatch negativity, and P300. The literature quality was considered moderate.Conclusions: Auditory electrophysiological testing can be used for the characteristic identification of children with suspected APD; however, the value of various electrophysiological testing methods for screening children with suspected APD requires further study.

Dyslexia and Auditory Processing Disorder: A Neurological Chicken or Egg Debate?

An estimated 10 million students in the United States have dyslexia and of those students, 2.5 million are estimated to have auditory processing disorder. There is an ongoing debate on whether auditory processing disorder causes or contributes to dyslexia or the disorders are just co-morbid. This paper examines dyslexia and auditory processing disorder and then considers current research on the nature of the relationship between the two disorders.

An Objective Approach Toward Understanding Auditory Processing Disorder

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.

Effectiveness of the Auditory Temporal Ordering and Resolution Tests to Detect Central Auditory Processing Disorder in Adults With Evidence of Brain Pathology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Auditory temporal processing tests are key clinical measures in order to diagnose central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). Although these tests have been used for decades, there is no up-to-date evidence to determine the effectiveness of detecting the abnormalities in central auditory processing in adults while the available national CAPD guidelines predominantly address CAPD in the pediatric population.Purpose: To determine the efficacy of the auditory temporal ordering tests [duration pattern test (DPT) and frequency pattern test (FPT)], and a temporal resolution test [gaps-in-noise (GIN) test] for detecting the central auditory processing abnormalities in adults with documented brain pathology.Research Design: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Study samples: Four databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus, were systematically searched. The publications in the English language that recruited adults (above 16 years old) with pathologic brain conditions and described the diagnostic tests for auditory temporal processing were selected for review.Data Collections and Analysis: All data were systematically evaluated, extracted, categorized, and summarized in tables. The meta-analysis was done in order to determine the effectiveness of the DPT, FPT, and GIN tests.Results: The results showed significantly poorer performance of DPT and FPT, compared between participants with confirmed brain disease and normal controls, at the mean differences of percent correct −21.93 (95% CI, −26.58 to −17.29) and −31.37 (95% CI, −40.55 to −22.19), respectively. Subjects with brain pathology also performed poorer in GIN test at the mean difference of 3.19 milliseconds (95% CI, 2.51 to 3.87).Conclusion: The results from the meta-analysis provide evidence that DPT, FPT, and GIN clinical measures are effective in the diagnosis of CAPD in adults with neurological disorders. Poor performance on these tests is significantly related to the confirmed brain pathology. However, different units in results presentation and variety of testing strategies are limitations for this meta-analysis. The standard pattern of result reporting and international protocols test strategies should be developed in order to conduct better meta-analyses with a larger collection of suitable studies and less heterogeneity.