Auditory Processing Problems; how children respond

2020

A number of children undergo audiometric evaluation due to suspected hearing difficulties. Yet for some, their hearing sensitivity is found to be normal (Iliadou et al., 2017; Sharma, Purdy, & Kelly, 2009). Often, these children are described by parents and teachers as having difficulties to follow several instructions or attend to a conversation, and getting distracted when background noise is present (Iliadou et al., 2017; Witton, 2010). There are also reports of these children either misunderstanding or taking longer to understand simple verbal directions, and demonstrating selective hearing (Johnson, Benson, & Seaton, 1997). These weaknesses often cause educational, vocational and social challenges (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), 2005; British Society of Audiology (BSA, 2007). Children exhibiting these problems could be diagnosed with Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) (American Academy of Audiology (AAA), 2010; ASHA, 2005; BSA, 2007; Iliadou et al., 2017).

Polski Przegląd Otorynolaryngologiczny

Introduction: Auditory Processing Disorders (APD) is a syndrome characterized by impairment of the perception of soundsverbal and non-verbal ones, and weakening cognitive abilities such as auditory attention and auditory memory. This symptoms occur despite correct functioning of the peripheral part of the organ of hearing. Aim: A review of the current literature on diagnostic criteria of APD and its subtypes, clinical symptoms in children, diagnostic procedures and methods and therapeutic interventions. Methods: The study was based on the guidelines of the British Audiological Society (BSA), the guidelines of the American Speech, Language and Hearing Society (ASHA) as well as a literature review in the PubMed database. Results: APD is divided into developmental (without an established cause), acquired (with an established cause) and secondary (a consequence of long-term peripheral hearing loss). Symptoms that indicate the likelihood of APD in schoolaged children include: poor school...

Ear and Hearing, 2004

To compare the auditory function of normal-hearing children attending mainstream schools who were referred for an auditory evaluation because of listening/hearing problems (suspected auditory processing disorders [susAPD]) with that of normal-hearing control children. Design: Sixty-five children with a normal standard audiometric evaluation, ages 6-14 yr (32 of whom were referred for susAPD, with the rest agematched control children), completed a battery of four auditory tests: a dichotic test of competing sentences; a simple discrimination of short tone pairs differing in fundamental frequency at varying interstimulus intervals (TDT); a discrimination task using consonant cluster minimal pairs of real words (CCMP), and an adaptive threshold task for detecting a brief tone presented either simultaneously with a masker (simultaneous masking) or immediately preceding it (backward masking). Regression analyses, including age as a covariate, were performed to determine the extent to which the performance of the two groups differed on each task. Age-corrected z-scores were calculated to evaluate the effectiveness of the complete battery in discriminating the groups. Results: The performance of the susAPD group was significantly poorer than the control group on all but the masking tasks, which failed to differentiate the two groups. The CCMP discriminated the groups most effectively, as it yielded the lowest number of control children with abnormal scores, and performance in both groups was independent of age. By contrast, the proportion of control children who performed poorly on the competing sentences test was unacceptably high. Together, the CCMP (verbal) and TDT (nonverbal) tasks detected impaired listening skills in 56% of the children who were referred to the clinic, compared with 6% of the control children. Performance on the two tasks was not correlated. Conclusions: Two of the four tests evaluated, the CCMP and TDT, proved effective in differentiating

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology, 2007

International Journal of Audiology, 2012

Defi nitions of auditory processing disorder (APD) are based on impaired auditory skills, with the specifi c skills included in the definition varying across publications (e.g. Putter et al, 2002; Sharma et al, 2009; Cameron & Dillon 2007a; Kuk et al, 2008). According to ASHA (2005), children with APD typically have poor speech understanding in adverse listening environments, misunderstand messages, respond inconsistently and/or inappropriately, often ask for information to be repeated, have diffi culty attending to verbal information, show delayed responses to oral communication, have diffi culty following complex and/or multiple oral directions and localizing sounds, and may have reduced musical and singing skills. When using an impaired skill to defi ne APD, diagnosis is based on performance falling two standard deviations below the normative mean on any task measuring auditory processing (AAA, 2010). The current study uses this criterion to defi ne APD, based on AAA (2010). APD often co-occurs with language, reading, spelling, and other learning problems (

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1988

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 2010

An auditory processing disorder (APD) is typically characterised by difficulties in understanding speech, often in a noisy listening environment, despite having a normal audiogram. In school-age children, APD has attracted considerable interest because of suspicions that it may lead to learning difficulties, especially affecting language and literacy, and hence to poor school performance. The diagnosis of APD remains a clinical challenge. Poor performance on APD tests does not provide sufficient evidence of an APD. The assessment should enable the clinician to delineate the cause of a listening problem and to separate auditory problems from language learning or attention deficits which may present in a similar way. Potential influences must be explored ranging from peripheral auditory dysfunction, in particular a history of otitis media with effusion in childhood associated with hearing loss [1], cross-modal sources such as attention [2], developmental factors

Academia Biology, 2023

Proximate and mineral composition are noted to be important parameters that determines the nutritional quality of groundnut products. However, low genetic variability has been a major bottleneck in genetic enhancement of these characters in breeding cultivars. Hence this study was conducted to determine the level of genetic diversity of the proximate and mineral composition in advance breeding lines and cultivars of groundnut. The trial consisted of 12 advance breeding lines and 7 cultivars which were evaluated in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) in three (3) replications at CSIR-Crop Research Institute, Fumesua, Ghana. The results showed significant genotypic effect recorded for all the traits except oil, moisture, ash and protein. The mean values recorded among the genotype were oil 47.9%, protein 21.06%, carbohydrate 19.47%, fibre 4.22%, moisture 4.79%, ash 2.8%. Whiles mineral concentration analysis revealed that the mean estimates for the genotypes were potassium (K) 1190.37(mg/100g), phosphorus (P) 280.77 (mg/100g), calcium (Ca) 222.92 (mg/100g), magnesium (Mg) 202.00 (mg/100g), iron (Fe) 1.97 (mg/100g), zinc (Zn) 2.11 (mg/100g), sodium (Na) 12.63 (mg/100g). Moreover, the level of phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV) estimates was found to be slightly higher than their respective genotypic coefficient of variations (GCV) for all the studied traits which might be the result of influence of environment on the expression of the traits. Low broad sense heritability was recorded for all the traits except zinc, iron, phosphorus, calcium and magnesium. Nonetheless, high heritability accompanied by high genetic advance as percent of mean for zinc (Zn) and iron (Fe), indicated that the heritability of these traits is due to additive gene effect and selection for such traits may be effective and rewarding. Keywords: Proximate, minerals, GCV, PCV, Heritability, Genetic Advance