Auditory Processing Disorder and Speech Perception Problems in Noise: Finding the Underlying Origin

Lagacé, Josée; Jutras, Benoît; Gagné, Jean‐Pierre

doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2010/09-0022)

Cited by 46 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As the prevalence of hearing loss increases with age, it may become more normal and thus less likely to be perceived as a problem that requires treatment. In some elderly individuals with auditory processing disorders, central auditory recognition problems in the absence of auditory perception disabilities can be subjectively perceived as hearing impairments [26]. These factors may be associated with the increased discordance between self-reported hearing loss and audiometric PTA test results with age.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrepancy between self-assessed hearing status and measured audiometric evaluation

Kim

et al. 2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine the difference between self-reported hearing status and hearing impairment assessed using conventional audiometry. The associated factors were examined when a concordance between self-reported hearing and audiometric measures was lacking.MethodsIn total, 19,642 individuals ≥20 years of age who participated in the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys conducted from 2009 through 2012 were enrolled. Pure-tone hearing threshold audiometry (PTA) was measured and classified into three levels: <25 dB (normal hearing); ≥25 dB <40 dB (mild hearing impairment); and ≥40 dB (moderate-to-severe hearing impairment). The self-reported hearing loss was categorized into 3 categories. The participants were categorized into three groups: the concordance (matched between self-reported hearing loss and audiometric PTA), overestimation (higher self-reported hearing loss compared to audiometric PTA), and underestimation groups (lower self-reported hearing loss compared to audiometric PTA). The associations of age, sex, education level, stress level, anxiety/depression, tympanic membrane (TM) status, hearing aid use, and tinnitus with the discrepancy between the hearing self-reported hearing loss and audiometric pure tone threshold results were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analysis with complex sampling.ResultsOverall, 80.1%, 7.1%, and 12.8% of the participants were assigned to the concordance, overestimation, and underestimation groups, respectively. Older age (adjusted odds ratios [AORs] = 1.28 [95% confidence interval = 1.19–1.37] and 2.80 [2.62–2.99] for the overestimation and the underestimation groups, respectively), abnormal TM (2.17 [1.46–3.23] and 1.59 [1.17–2.15]), and tinnitus (2.44 [2.10–2.83] and 1.61 [1.38–1.87]) were positively correlated with both the overestimation and underestimation groups. Compared with specialized workers, service workers, manual workers, and the unemployed were more likely to be in the overestimation group (1.48 [1.11–1.98], 1.39 [1.04–1.86], and 1.50 [1.18–1.90], respectively), and service workers were more likely to be in the underestimation group (AOR = 1.42 [1.01–1.99]). Higher education level (0.77 [0.59–1.01] and 0.43 [0.33–0.57]) and hearing aid use (0.36 [0.17–0.77] and 0.23 [0.13–0.43]) were negatively associated with being in the underestimation group (0.43 [0.37–0.50]). Compared with males, females were less likely to be assigned to the underestimation group (0.43 [0.37–0.50]). Stress (1.98 [1.32–2.98]) and anxiety/depression (1.30 [1.06–1.59]) were associated with overestimation group.ConclusionOlder age, lower education level, occupation, abnormal TM, non-hearing aid use, and tinnitus were related to both overestimation and underestimation groups. Male gender was related to underestimation, and stress and anxiety/depression were correlated with overestimation group. An understanding of these factors associated with the self-reported hearing loss will be instrumental to identifying and managing hearin...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrepancy between self-assessed hearing status and measured audiometric evaluation

Kim

et al. 2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, temporal pattern/temporal resolution tests evaluate perception of time based aspects of an acoustical signal (Bellis, 1996). Additionally, tests used to evaluate monoaural auditory separation/closure have also been suggested in the diagnosis of APD (Lagac e et al, 2010;Katz et al,1992;Muthuselvi and Yathiraj, 2009) as this process is frequently affected in individuals who have symptoms of APD. Auditory closure is considered to be the ability of an individual to perceive information that is either missed or distorted in an auditory signal to recognize a message.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Auditory, visual, and auditory-visual processing performance in typically developing children: Modality independence versus dependence

Pillai¹,

Yathiraj²

2015

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study was carried out to determine whether cross-modal interactions occur during processing of auditory and/or visual signals that require separation/closure, integration, and duration pattern perception in typically developing children. Thirty typically developing children were evaluated on three auditory processing tests (speech-in-noise test in Indian-English, dichotic-consonant vowel test, and duration pattern test) that tapped separation/closure, integration and duration pattern perception. The children were also evaluated on the visual and auditory-visual analogues of the auditory tests. Differences in modality were found in each of the processes that were tested. The performance when the auditory and visual modalities were tested simultaneously was significantly higher than the auditory or visual modality for tests that involved separation/closure and integration. In contrast, scores on the analogous auditory-visual duration pattern test were significantly higher than the auditory test but not the visual analogous test. Further, the scores of the auditory modality were significantly poorer than the visual modality for separation/closure and duration patterning but not for integration. Findings of the study indicate that performance on higher level processing varies depending on the modality that is assessed and supports the presence of cross-modality interactions.

show abstract

“…Even exposures leading "only" to temporary threshold shifts (TTSs) can produce permanent damage, such as the destruction of IHC ribbon synapses and the resulting gradual degeneration of the denervated SGCs (Kujawa & Liberman 2006. It is possible that noise-induced SGC degeneration could explain at least some cases characterized by poor speech reception in noise but with relatively normal audiograms and cochlear function (Nábȇlek 1988;Gordon-Salant 2005;Frisina 2009;Lagacé et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reversible Long-Term Changes in Auditory Processing in Mature Auditory Cortex in the Absence of Hearing Loss Induced by Passive, Moderate-Level Sound Exposure

Pienkowski

Eggermont

2012

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has become increasingly clear that even occasional exposure to loud sounds in occupational or recreational settings can cause irreversible damage to the hair cells of the cochlea and the auditory nerve fibers, even if the resulting partial loss of hearing sensitivity, usually accompanied by tinnitus, disappears within hours or days of the exposure. Such exposure may explain at least some cases of poor speech intelligibility in noise in the face of a normal or near-normal audiogram. Recent findings from our laboratory suggest that long-term changes to auditory brain function-potentially leading to problems with speech intelligibility-can be effected by persistent, passive exposure to more moderate levels of noise (in the 70 dB SPL range) in the apparent absence of damage to the auditory periphery (as reflected in normal distortion product otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem responses). Specifically, passive exposure of adult cats to moderate levels of band-pass-filtered noise, or to band-limited ensembles of dense, random tone pips, can lead to a profound decrease of neural activity in the auditory cortex roughly in the exposure frequency range, and to an increase of activity outside that range. This can progress to an apparent reorganization of the cortical tonotopic map, which is reminiscent of the reorganization resulting from hearing loss restricted to a part of the hearing frequency range, although again, no hearing loss was apparent after our moderate-level sound exposure. Here, we review this work focusing specifically on the potential hearing problems that may arise despite a normally functioning auditory periphery.

show abstract

Auditory Processing Disorder and Speech Perception Problems in Noise: Finding the Underlying Origin

Cited by 46 publications

References 70 publications

Discrepancy between self-assessed hearing status and measured audiometric evaluation

Discrepancy between self-assessed hearing status and measured audiometric evaluation

Auditory, visual, and auditory-visual processing performance in typically developing children: Modality independence versus dependence

Reversible Long-Term Changes in Auditory Processing in Mature Auditory Cortex in the Absence of Hearing Loss Induced by Passive, Moderate-Level Sound Exposure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About