ORIGINAL ARTICLE
EFFECT OF EXTENDING THE RESPONSE WINDOW AND OF SUBJECT PRACTICE ON MEASURES OF AUDITORY PROCESSING IN CHILDREN WITH LEARNING OR READING DISABILITY
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, PA, USA
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Mohsin Ahmed M. Shaikh   

Mohsin Ahmed Shaikh, Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, Bloomsburg University, 400 East 2nd Street, Room 232, Bloomsburg, PA 17815-1301, USA; e-mail: mshaikh@bloomu.edu
Publication date: 2020-04-10
 
J Hear Sci 2017;7(3):37–43
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
This study studied the effect of extending the response window on the auditory processing (AP) test performance of children with a learning disability or reading disability (LD/RD). The study also investigated whether subject practice affected test performance.

Material and Methods:
Twenty-four children with an LD and 12 typically developing (TD) age-matched peers between 9 and 13 years of age participated in the study. The participants were administered three AP tests – the dichotic digit (DD), duration pattern sequence (DPS), and random gap detection (RGD) test – under two conditions: standard response window and extended response window.

Results:
The performance of the LD group on the DD and DPS tests significantly improved using an extended time window whereas the performance of the TD group did not change.

Conclusions:
The findings suggest that some children with an LD achieve higher scores on auditory processing tasks if given a longer response window. This has implications for diagnosis and for providing a potential differential diagnosis tool.

FUNDING
This work was supported by a Graduate Student Association Research Grant, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
 
REFERENCES (24)
1.
Sharma M, Purdy SC, Kelly AS. Comorbidity of auditory processing, language, and reading disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2009; 52: 706–22.
 
2.
Tallal P, Stark RE. Speech acoustic-cue discrimination abilities of normally developing and language-impaired children. J Acoust Soc Am, 1981; 69: 568–74.
 
3.
Studdert-Kennedy M, Mody M. Auditory temporal perception deficits in the reading-impaired: A critical review of the evidence. Psychon Bull Rev, 1995; 2: 508–14.
 
4.
Ferguson MA, Hall RL, Riley A, Moore DR. Communication, listening, cognitive and speech perception skills in children with auditory processing disorder (APD) or specific language impairment (SLI). J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2011; 54: 211–27.
 
5.
Kamhi AG. What speech-language pathologists need to know about auditory processing disorder. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, 2011; 42: 265–72.
 
6.
King WM, Lombardino LJ, Crandell CC, Leonard CM. Comorbid auditory processing disorder in developmental dyslexia. Ear Hear, 2003; 24: 448–56.
 
7.
Zaidan E, Baran JA. Gaps-in-noise (GIN©) test results in children with and without reading disabilities and phonological processing deficits. Int J Audiol, 2013; 52: 113–23.
 
8.
Rosen S. Auditory processing in dyslexia and specific language impairment: is there a deficit? What is its nature? Does it explain anything? J Phon, 2003; 31: 509–27.
 
9.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). Technical Report: (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders, 2005 Viewed 2016 May 10; available from http://www.asha.org/policy/TR2....
 
10.
Dawes P, Bishop D. Auditory processing disorder in relation to developmental disorders of language, communication and attention: a review and critique. Int J Lang Commun Disord, 2009; 44: 440–65.
 
11.
Cook JR, Mausbach T, Burd L, Gascon GG, Slotnick HB, Patterson B et al. A preliminary study of the relationship between central auditory processing disorder and attention deficit disorder. J Psychiatry Neurosci, 1993; 18: 130–37.
 
12.
Lum JA, Zarafa M. Relationship between verbal working memory and the SCAN-C in children with specific language impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, 2010; 41: 521–30.
 
13.
Gomez R, Condon M. Central auditory processing ability in children with ADHD with and without learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil, 1999; 32: 150–58.
 
14.
Schwartz RG. Handbook of child language disorders. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2010.
 
15.
Marler JA, Champlin CA, Gillam RB. Backward and simultaneous masking measured in children with language-learning impairments who received intervention with Fast ForWord or laureate Learning Systems software. Am J Speech Lang Pathol, 2001; 10: 258–68.
 
16.
Smith C, Strick L. Learning disabilities: A to Z: A parent’s complete guide to learning disabilities from preschool to adulthood. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 1999.
 
17.
McCroskey RL, Thompson NW. Comprehension of rate controlled speech by children with specific learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil, 1973; 6: 621–27.
 
18.
Montgomery J. Sentence comprehension in children with specific language impairment: effects of input rate and phonological working memory. Int J Lang Commun Disord, 2004; 39: 115–33.
 
19.
Schaffler T, Sonntag J, Hartnegg K, Fischer B. The effect of practice on low-level auditory discrimination, phonological skills, and spelling in dyslexia. Dyslexia, 2004; 10: 119–30.
 
20.
Wechsler D. Wechsler intelligence scale for children: Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1991.
 
21.
Bellis TJ. Assessment and management of central auditory processing disorders in the educational setting: From science to practice. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2003.
 
22.
Keith R. Random gap detection test. St. Louis, MO: Auditec; 2000.
 
23.
Musiek FE, Wilson DH, Pinheiro ML. Audiological manifestations in “split brain” patients. J Am Aud Soc, 1979; 5: 25–29.
 
24.
Musiek FE. Frequency (pitch) and duration pattern tests. J Am Acad Audiol, 1994; 5: 265–68.
 
eISSN:2084-3127
ISSN:2083-389X