Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
EFFECT OF EXTENDING THE RESPONSE WINDOW
AND OF SUBJECT PRACTICE ON MEASURES OF
AUDITORY PROCESSING IN CHILDREN WITH
LEARNING OR READING DISABILITY
| 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
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: 2017-09-30
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.
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.
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.
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.