Correlation between Speech Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response and Gap in Noise Tests in 8-12 Year-Old Children with Central Auditory Processing Disorder

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 Department of Otolaryngology and Head and neck surgery, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran

2 MSc Student of Audiology. Department of Audiology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Associated Professor. Department of Audiology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

4 Ph.D. Audiology. NEWSHA Hearing Institute, Tehran, Iran

5 Assistant Professor of Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences

Abstract

Background and Aim: Auditory temporal processing may be defined as the perception of the temporal envelope or the alteration of durational characteristics of a sound within a restricted or defined time interval and it likely underlies, at least in part, most other processes, such as localization, discrimination, pattern processing, binaural integration, and binaural separation. Temporal resolution is a component of the recommended minimal central auditory processing test battery. The Gap in Noise (GIN) test is a valuable tool in identifying temporal resolution deficits. Using appropriate speech stimuli, the auditory brainstem responses appear to reflect processing of the temporal features of speech in addition to documenting brainstem activation in response to stimulus onset. As the GIN test and complex ABR (cABR) evaluate temporal resolution of auditory stimuli in different aspects, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the correlation between the two tests and the possibility of using cABR as an electrophysiological test for temporal processing in central auditory processing disorder test battery.
Materials and Methods: A total of 20 CAPD children, within the age range of 8–12 years, diagnosed with four auditory processing tests, participated in the study. GIN test was administered for all of the participants and nine children underwent ABR and cABR tests. Then, the results of the tests were compared between the two groups.
Results: Based on the results of GIN test, these children had temporal processing impairment; the results were also confirmed using cABR. There was also a correlation between the gap detection threshold in GIN test and the slope of V-A in cABR.
Conclusion: Both GIN and cABR can evaluate temporal processing, but since there is no need for active participation of the individuals in cABR, this test can be used in younger children and those who cannot take behavioral tests.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005). (central) auditory processing disorders [Technical Report]. Available from http://www.asha.org/policy/TR2005-00043.htm, accessed September 2015. ##
2. Jafarzadeh S, Firoozi M, Ghazizadehhashemi SAH. Comprehensive diagnisis, treatment & rehabilitation in Audiology. Mashhad: Sokhangostar; 2012. P. 774-773. ##
3. Musiek FE, Shinn JB, Jirsa R, Bamiou DE, Baran JA, Zaidan E. GIN (Gaps-In-Noise) Test Performance in Subjects with Confirmed Central Auditory Nervous System Involvement. Ear Hear. 2005; VOL. 26 NO. 6:608-618. ##
4. Shinn JB, Chermak GD, Musiek FE. GIN (Gaps-In-Noise) Performance in the Pediatric Population, J Am Acad Audiol. 2009; 20:229–238. ##
5. American Academy of Audiology Clinical Practice Guidelines, Guidelines for the Diagnosis, Treatment and Management of Children and Adults with Central Auditory Processing Disorder, August 2010. ##
6. Molfese DL. Predicting dyslexia at 8 years of age using neonatal brain responses. Brain and Language. 2000; 72:238–245. ##
7. Benasich AA, Tallal P. Infant discrimination of rapid auditory cues predicts later language impairment. Behav Brain Res. 2002; 136:31–49. ##
8. Malayeri S, Lotfi Y, Moossavi SA, Rostami R. Brainstem response to speech and non-speech stimuli in children with learning problems. Hear Res. 2014; 313:75-82. ##
9. Newton VE. Paediatric Audiological Medicine. 2nd ed. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd;2009. ##
10. Wible B, Nicol T, Kraus N. Atypical brainstem representation of onset and formant structure of speech sounds in children with language-based learning problems. Biol Psychol. 2004;67: 299–317. ##
11. Krishnamurti S, Forrester J, Rutledge C, Holmes GW. A case study of the changes in the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response associated with auditory training in children with auditory processing disorders. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013; http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.12.032. ##
12. Sinha SK, Basavaraj V. Speech Evoked Auditory Brainstem Responses: A New Tool to Study Brainstem Encoding of Speech Sounds. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010; 62(4):395–399. ##
13. Mahdavi ME, Aghazadeh J, Tahaei SAA, Heiran F, Akbarzadeh Baghban A. . Persian randomized dichotic digits test: Development and dichotic listening performance in young adults. Audiol. 2015; 23, 99-113. ##
14. Mosleh M. Develipment and evaluation of a speech recognition test for persian speaking adults [dissertation]. [Tehran]. Tehran University of Medical Sciences:2000. 112p. ##
15. Perez AP, Pereira LD. The Gap in Noise Test in 11 and 12-year-old children. Pro Fono. 2010; jan-mar;22(1):7-12. ##
16. Tajik S, Adel Ghahraman M, Tahaie AA, Hajiabolhassan F, Jalilvand Karimi L, Jalaie S. Deficit of auditory temporal processing in children with dyslexia-dysgraphia. Audiol. 2012;21(4):76-83. ##
17. Lotfi Y, Ghasemi F, Moossavi A, Malayeri S, Bakhshi. Comparison of auditory temporal processing ability between children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and normal children aged 7 to 12 years using Gaps-In-Noise test. Rehab Med. 2014; 3(3): 63-71##
18. Shahhoseyni S. Clinical audiology 2(Electrophysiological tests). Tehran: Seda publishing center; 2010. P. 287-288. ##
19. Rocha-Muniz CN, Befi-Lopes DM, Schochat E. Investigation of auditory processing disorder and language impairment using the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response. Hear Res. 2012; 294:143-152. ##
20. Russo N, Nicol T, Musacchia G, Kraus N. Brainstem responses to speech syllables. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004; 115:2021-2030. ##
21. Malayeri S, Lotfi Y, Moossavi SA, Rostami R. Brainstem response to speech and non-speech stimuli in children with learning problems. Hear Res. 2014; 313:75-82.##
The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 6, Issue 4
January and February 2018
Pages 23-30

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 September 2016
  • Revise Date: 10 December 2016
  • Accept Date: 05 January 2017
  • First Publish Date: 22 December 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics