Auditory Brainstem Responses in Children with Auditory Processing Disorder

Veeranna, Sangamanatha Ankmnal; Allan, Chris; Allen, Philip A.

doi:10.3766/jaaa.18046

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The term listening difficulties is increasingly being used to describe children who are observed to have atypical difficulty in understanding speech or other auditory stimuli, often for unknown reasons ( Dawes & Bishop 2010 ; Moore 2012 ; Ankmnal-Veeranna et al 2019 ; Boothalingam et al 2019 ; Moore et al 2020a ). It has also been suggested that listening difficulty replace the label auditory processing disorder ( Moore 2018 ).…”

Section: A Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Separating the Causes of Listening Difficulties in Children

Dillon

Cameron

2021

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory processing disorder, defined here as a deficit in the way sounds are analyzed by the brain, has remained a controversial topic within audiology for decades. Some of the controversy concerns what it is called. More substantively, even its existence has been questioned. That view has likely emerged because there has not been sufficient rigor in determining when difficulty in understanding speech has been the consequence of some type of auditory processing deficit, versus when it is the consequence of a cognitive deficit or a language deficit. This article suggests that the field use the term “listening difficulty” as an umbrella term to indicate a reported deficit in recognizing sounds or understanding speech, one possible cause of which is an auditory processing disorder. Other possible causes are hearing deficits, cognitive deficits, and language deficits. This article uses a plausible, and hopefully noncontroversial, model of speech understanding that comprises auditory processing, speech processing, and language processing, all potentially affected by the degree of attention applied and the listener’s memory ability. In a fresh approach to the construction of test batteries, the stages of the model are linked to tests designed to assess either all or selected parts of the processes involved. For two of the stages, a listener’s performance is quantified as the additional signal to noise ratio that he or she needs to function equivalently to his or her age peers. Subtraction of the deficits revealed by each test enables the contributions of each processing stage to a listening deficit to be quantified. As a further novel contribution, the impact of memory and attention on each test score is quantitatively allowed for, by an amount that depends on each test’s dependence on memory and attention. Attention displayed during the test is estimated from the fluctuations in performance during the test. The article concludes with a summary of the research that must be conducted before the structured tests can be used to quantify the extent to which different potential causes of listening difficulties are responsible for real-life difficulties in an individual child.

show abstract

Section: A Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Separating the Causes of Listening Difficulties in Children

Dillon

Cameron

2021

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The click ABR is an objective electrophysiological test widely used to assess hearing threshold and brainstem neural integrity ( 46 , 47 ). Ankmnal-Veeranna et al retrospectively compared 108 children with sAPD and 22 normal children for auditory brainstem response recording ( 32 ). Recording of click ABR in this study consisted of a slow stimulus (13.3 beats/s) and a fast stimulus (57.7 beats/s) presented to the left and right ears via headphones at an acoustic stimulus of 80 dBnHL, and the typical clinical indexes (latency and interpeak interval of waves I, III, and V) were analyzed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Abnormalities in the latencies and amplitudes of the ABR imply the impaired integrity of the auditory pathways ( 95 , 96 ). ABR matures earlier ( 32 ) and is not affected by the state of consciousness of the child; as such, ABR is clinically more useful for monitoring the integrity of the auditory nerve in infants and young children. Although click ABR may be a useful electrophysiological tool in detecting auditory nerve integrity, its use for the identification of children with APD has not been clearly demonstrated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…It is worth noting that a recent auditory brainstem response (ABR) examination of children with a diagnosis of suspected APD was completed by Ankmnal-Veeranna et al (2019), finding that, when compared with a control group, 37% of the children with a suspected APD diagnosis had abnormal ABR, although the majority had normal ABR recordings, comparable to controls. We acknowledge that this provides hopeful progress in the effort to find an organic index test for APD, but the professions clearly have not reached that goal yet.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of the Multiple Auditory Processing Assessment–2: A Test of Auditory Processing Disorder

Schow

Whitaker

Seikel

et al. 2020

LSHSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose A normative study using the Multiple Auditory Processing Assessment–2 (MAPA-2; Schow et al., 2018) was recently completed. With access to these data, the authors extend that work and support a definite construct for auditory processing disorder (APD). The goal here is to examine MAPA-2 reliability and validity (construct, content, and concurrent). Evidence for the APD construct is further buttressed by measures of sensitivity and specificity. Results of MAPA-2 testing on children diagnosed with learning disability (LD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and specific language impairment (SLI) are included. Method Normative data (previously published as the MAPA-2) allowing derivation of these findings included a representative sample of 748 children (53% girls) ages 7–14 years tested by 54 speech-language pathologists and audiologists in 27 U.S. states. The authors examined diagnostic accuracy based on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005) criteria (index test) for confirmed cases of APD. The index was also used to identify listening problems for three other diagnostic categories (LD, ADHD, and SLI). Validated questionnaire responses from parents and school personnel allowed incorporation of functional measures widely supported in APD diagnosis but unavailable with other normative and sensitivity/specificity studies. Results Reliability and validity were both satisfactory, and diagnostic accuracy for an APD group of 18 (28% female) compared to the remaining typical group of 625 yielded 89% sensitivity and 82% specificity. The remaining three groups (LD, ADHD, and SLI), where comorbidity was expected to be about 50%, had APD-type listening problems with a prevalence ranging from 52% to 65%. Conclusions Current results provide important evidence for the construct of APD. The MAPA-2 can be administered by an audiologist or speech-language pathologist. A similar diagnostic protocol in Australia yielded positive therapeutic gains. Further study is encouraged to determine if the present positive findings will be found in future research.

show abstract

Auditory Brainstem Responses in Children with Auditory Processing Disorder

Cited by 21 publications

References 47 publications

Separating the Causes of Listening Difficulties in Children

Separating the Causes of Listening Difficulties in Children

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

Validity of the Multiple Auditory Processing Assessment–2: A Test of Auditory Processing Disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About