Investigating the Interaction between Dichotic Deficits and Cognitive Abilities Using the Dichotic Digits difference Test (DDdT) Part 2

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (06) ◽  
pp. 470-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Cameron ◽  
Helen Glyde ◽  
Harvey Dillon ◽  
Jessica Whitfield
Keyword(s):  
Test Performance ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Performance Test ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Attention And Memory ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Difference Test

Background: The Dichotic Digits difference Test (DDdT) was developed to investigate the relationship between dichotic processing and cognitive abilities and, through the use of differential test scores, to provide professionals with a clinical tool that could aid in differentiation of clients with genuine dichotic deficits from those where cognitive disorders affect test performance. The DDdT consists of four subtests: dichotic free recall (FR), dichotic directed left ear, dichotic directed right ear, and diotic. Scores are calculated for six conditions: FR left ear (LE), right ear (RE), and total, as well as the directed left ear, directed right ear, and diotic, and four difference measures: dichotic advantage, RE advantage FR, RE advantage directed, and attention advantage. Purpose: To investigate the role of cognitive abilities on DDdT test performance. Research Design: Correlational analysis between the various DDdT conditions and difference measures, as well as between dichotic, diotic, and cognitive factors (memory, intelligence, and attention). Study Sample: Fifty typically developing children (aged 7 yr 0 mo to 12 yr 1 mo, mean = 9 yr 2 mo) and ten children recruited from the Australian Hearing CAPD Service who were diagnosed with a memory or dichotic deficit (aged 7 yr 0 mo to 15 yr 0 mo, mean = 9 yr 5 mo) took part in the study. Data Collection and Analysis: The Pearson product moment correlations were used to determine the strength of relationships between DDdT conditions as well as relationships between scores on these conditions and performance on the various cognitive assessment tools, which included the number memory forward and reversed subtests of the Test of Auditory Processing Skills – Third Edition, IVA + Plus Continuous Performance Test, and the Test of Non-Verbal Intelligence-4 (TONI-4). A parent questionnaire (Fisher’s Auditory Checklist) and a participant questionnaire (Listening Inventory for Education) were also administered. Results: Diotic performance was significantly correlated with performance on all the DDdT dichotic FR conditions (r = 0.6–0.8; p < 0.00001). Further, significant correlations were found between the FR LE, total, and diotic conditions, and the cognitive measures of attention and memory, with r ranging from 0.4 to 0.5 (p < 0.01–0.001). Right-ear performance was not significantly correlated to any cognitive measure, except for FR RE and number memory forward (r = 0.35; p = 0.006). The DDdT dichotic advantage measure was investigated in a subset of clinical children and found to aid in differentiating true dichotic from spurious results. Conclusions: As found in the DDdT normative data study that precedes in the companion paper (DDdT Study Part 1; Cameron et al, 2016), the high correlation between dichotic and diotic performances by the clinical and typically developing participants suggests that factors other than dichotic performance play a substantial role in a child’s ability to perform a dichotic listening task. Indeed, 61% of the variance in FR total scores for the children in this study was accounted for by factors that do not involve the perception of dichotic stimuli. This view is supported by the correlations between measures of attention and memory and dichotic scores. This result has wide-spread implications in respect to interpretation of central auditory processing disorder test results and further investigation of the use of the DDdT in a clinical population is warranted.

Are ‘‘Dichotic’’ Deficits Uniquely Dichotic? Investigating Dichotic Performance with the Dichotic Digits Difference Test (DDdT) in a Large Clinical Population of Children Referred for an Auditory Processing Assessment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Cameron ◽  
Harvey Dillon
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Clinical Group ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Central Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Z Scores ◽  
Listening Task

Background: Previous studies in a large population of typically developing (TD) children and a smallclinical group showed high correlations between the dichotic and diotic conditions of the Dichotic Digitsdifference Test (DDdT), as well as between DDdT performance and measures of memory and attention.Purpose: The purpose of the study was to investigate the performance on the DDdT in a large clinical sample.Research Design: Correlational analysis between the DDdT diotic condition and the dichotic free recall (FR)right-ear, left-ear, and total (ear-averaged) conditions, as well as between DDdT and memory performance.Study Sample: One hundred one children (6 years, 3 months to 15 years, 0 months, mean 9 years, 6 months)were referred for assessment to the Australian Hearing Central Auditory Processing Disorder (CAPD) service.Results were compared with data from 112 TD children collected from previously published studies.Data Collection and Analysis: Z-scores were used to account for the effect of age on performance.Mean differences between clinical and TD children were investigated using analysis of variance(ANOVA). Pearson product-moment correlations determined the strength of relationships between DDdTconditions and the number memory forward (NMF) and reversed (NMR) subtests of the Test of AuditoryProcessing Skills—Third Edition.Results: Performance by the clinical group on the DDdT dichotic FR (RE, LE, and total) conditions wassignificantly correlated with the diotic condition (r = 0.7; 0.7, 0.8; p < 0.001). Significant correlations werefound between the DDdT diotic and dichotic FR conditions and the NMF (r = 0.5–0.6, p < 0.001) andNMR (r = 0.2–0.5, p < 0.025–0.001). ANOVA revealed no significant difference between the TD andclinical groups (p = 1.0000) in respect to the advantage they got from dichotic listening (calculated asdichotic FR total minus diotic score). Multiple regression revealed that diotic performance and short-termmemory accounted for 68% of the variation in dichotic performance. Random measurement erroraccounted for a further 16%.Conclusions: Factors other than dichotic performance strongly impact a child’s ability to perform a dichoticdigit listening task. This result has widespread implications in respect to the interpretation of CAPDtest results.

scholarly journals Central auditory processing in bilinguals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamileh Chupani ◽  
Mohanna Javanbakht ◽  
Yones Lotfi
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Processing ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Attention And Memory ◽  
Auditory Information ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Listening Studies

Background and Aim: The majority of the world’s population is bilingual. Bilingualism is a form of sensory enrichment that translates to gains in cognitive abilities; these cognitive gains in attention and memory are known to modulate subcortical processing of auditory stimuli. Sec­ond language acquisition has a broad impact on various psychological, cognitive, memory, and linguistic processes. Central auditory processing (CAP) is the perceptual processing of auditory information. Due to its importance in bilingu­alism, this study aimed to review the CAP of bilinguals. Recent Findings: The CAP was studied in three areas: dichotic listening, temporal processing, and speech in noise perception. Regarding dicho­tic listening, studies have shown that bilinguals have better performance in staggered spondaic word (SSW) test, consonant-vowel dichotic test, dichotic digits test (DDT), and disyllable dichotic test than monolinguals, although similar results have also been reported in SSW and DDT. Reg­arding temporal processing, the results of bilin­guals do not differ from those of monolinguals, although in some cases, it is better in bilinguals. Regarding speech in noise perception, the results between bilinguals and monolinguals are varied depending on the amount of linguistic infor­mation available in the stimuli. Conclusion: Bilingualism has a positive effect on dichotic processing, no effect on temporal processing, and varied effect on speech in noise perception. Bilinguals have poor performance using meaningful speech and better performance using meaningless speech. Keywords: Central auditory processing; bilingual; dichotic listening; temporal processing; speech in noise perception

scholarly journals Are “Dichotic” Deficits Uniquely Dichotic? Investigating Dichotic Performance with the Dichotic Digits Difference Test (DDdT) in a Large Clinical Population of Children Referred for an Auditory Processing Assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (03) ◽  
pp. 233-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Cameron ◽  
Harvey Dillon
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Clinical Group ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Random Measurement Error ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Difference Test

AbstractPrevious studies in a large population of typically developing (TD) children and a small clinical group showed high correlations between the dichotic and diotic conditions of the Dichotic Digits difference Test (DDdT), as well as between DDdT performance and measures of memory and attention.The purpose of the study was to investigate the performance on the DDdT in a large clinical sample.Correlational analysis between the DDdT diotic condition and the dichotic free recall (FR) right-ear, left-ear, and total (ear-averaged) conditions, as well as between DDdT and memory performance.One hundred one children (6 years 3 months to 15 years 0 month, mean 9 years 6 months) were referred for assessment to the Australian Hearing Central Auditory Processing Disorder (CAPD) service. Results were compared with data from 112 TD children collected from previously published studies.Z-scores were used to account for the effect of age on performance. Mean differences between clinical and TD children were investigated using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Pearson product-moment correlations determined the strength of relationships between DDdT conditions and the number memory forward (NMF) and reversed (NMR) subtests of the Test of Auditory Processing Skills—Third Edition.Performance by the clinical group on the DDdT dichotic FR (RE, LE, and total) conditions was significantly correlated with the diotic condition (r = 0.7; 0.7, 0.8; p < 0.001). Significant correlations were found between the DDdT diotic and dichotic FR conditions and the NMF (r = 0.5–0.6, p < 0.001) and NMR (r = 0.2–0.5, p < 0.025–0.001). ANOVA revealed no significant difference between the TD and clinical groups (p = 1.0000) in respect to the advantage they got from dichotic listening (calculated as dichotic FR total minus diotic score). Multiple regression revealed that diotic performance and short-term memory accounted for 68% of the variation in dichotic performance. Random measurement error accounted for a further 16%.Factors other than dichotic performance strongly impact a child’s ability to perform a dichotic digit listening task. This result has widespread implications in respect to the interpretation of CAPD test results.

Development and Evaluation of the LiSN & Learn Auditory Training Software for Deficit-Specific Remediation of Binaural Processing Deficits in Children: Preliminary Findings

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 678-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Cameron ◽  
Harvey Dillon
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Auditory Training ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Attention And Memory ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Central Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Binaural Processing ◽  
Listening Ability ◽  
Processing Deficits

Background: The LiSN & Learn auditory training software was developed specifically to improve binaural processing skills in children with suspected central auditory processing disorder who were diagnosed as having a spatial processing disorder (SPD). SPD is defined here as a condition whereby individuals are deficient in their ability to use binaural cues to selectively attend to sounds arriving from one direction while simultaneously suppressing sounds arriving from another. As a result, children with SPD have difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments, such as in the classroom. Purpose: To develop and evaluate the LiSN & Learn auditory training software for children diagnosed with the Listening in Spatialized Noise—Sentences Test (LiSN-S) as having an SPD. The LiSN-S is an adaptive speech-in-noise test designed to differentially diagnose spatial and pitch-processing deficits in children with suspected central auditory processing disorder. Study Sample: Participants were nine children (aged between 6 yr, 9 mo, and 11 yr, 4 mo) who performed outside normal limits on the LiSN-S. Research Design: In a pre–post study of treatment outcomes, participants trained on the LiSN & Learn for 15 min per day for 12 weeks. Participants acted as their own control. Participants were assessed on the LiSN-S, as well as tests of attention and memory and a self-report questionnaire of listening ability. Performance on all tasks was reassessed after 3 mo where no further training occurred. Intervention: The LiSN & Learn produces a three-dimensional auditory environment under headphones on the user's home computer. The child's task was to identify a word from a target sentence presented in background noise. A weighted up-down adaptive procedure was used to adjust the signal level of the target based on the participant's response. Results: On average, speech reception thresholds on the LiSN & Learn improved by 10 dB over the course of training. As hypothesized, there were significant improvements in posttraining performance on the LiSN-S conditions where the target and distracter stimuli are spatially separated and which specifically evaluate binaural processing ability (p ranging from <.003 to .0001, η2 ranging from 0.694 to 0.873). In contrast, there was no improvement on the LiSN-S control conditions where the target and distracter stimuli emanate from the same direction (p ranging from .07 to .86, η2 ranging from 0.362 to 0.004). Significant improvements were found posttraining on measures of memory, on one measure of attention, and on self-reported ratings of listening ability. There were no significant differences between post- and 3 mo posttraining scores on any of the assessment tools. Conclusions: The initial LiSN & Learn study has shown that children as young as 6 yr of age are able to complete the training (although some coaxing was needed in a minority of cases). Both parents and children have reported benefits from the training, and feedback from the trial has resulted in extra features being added to the software. In order to further evaluate the efficacy of LiSN & Learn to remediate binaural processing deficits in children a clinical trial is currently under way utilizing a randomized blinded control group design.

Central Auditory Processing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josef P. Rauschecker
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Cortex ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Auditory Perception ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Visible Part ◽  
Auditory Object ◽  
Mother’S Voice ◽  
The Brain

When one talks about hearing, some may first imagine the auricle (or external ear), which is the only visible part of the auditory system in humans and other mammals. Its shape and size vary among people, but it does not tell us much about a person’s abilities to hear (except perhaps their ability to localize sounds in space, where the shape of the auricle plays a certain role). Most of what is used for hearing is inside the head, particularly in the brain. The inner ear transforms mechanical vibrations into electrical signals; then the auditory nerve sends these signals into the brainstem, where intricate preprocessing occurs. Although auditory brainstem mechanisms are an important part of central auditory processing, it is the processing taking place in the cerebral cortex (with the thalamus as the mediator), which enables auditory perception and cognition. Human speech and the appreciation of music can hardly be imagined without a complex cortical network of specialized regions, each contributing different aspects of auditory cognitive abilities. During the evolution of these abilities in higher vertebrates, especially birds and mammals, the cortex played a crucial role, so a great deal of what is referred to as central auditory processing happens there. Whether it is the recognition of one’s mother’s voice, listening to Pavarotti singing or Yo-Yo Ma playing the cello, hearing or reading Shakespeare’s sonnets, it will evoke electrical vibrations in the auditory cortex, but it does not end there. Large parts of frontal and parietal cortex receive auditory signals originating in auditory cortex, forming processing streams for auditory object recognition and auditory-motor control, before being channeled into other parts of the brain for comprehension and enjoyment.

The Utility of Visual Analogs of Central Auditory Tests in the Differential Diagnosis of (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (08) ◽  
pp. 501-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teri James Bellis ◽  
Cassie Billiet ◽  
Jody Ross
Keyword(s):  
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Central Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Comparison Measures

Background: Cacace and McFarland (2005) have suggested that the addition of cross-modal analogs will improve the diagnostic specificity of (C)APD (central auditory processing disorder) by ensuring that deficits observed are due to the auditory nature of the stimulus and not to supra-modal or other confounds. Others (e.g., Musiek et al, 2005) have expressed concern about the use of such analogs in diagnosing (C)APD given the uncertainty as to the degree to which cross-modal measures truly are analogous and emphasize the nonmodularity of the CANs (central auditory nervous system) and its function, which precludes modality specificity of (C)APD. To date, no studies have examined the clinical utility of cross-modal (e.g., visual) analogs of central auditory tests in the differential diagnosis of (C)APD. Purpose: This study investigated performance of children diagnosed with (C)APD, children diagnosed with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), and typically developing children on three diagnostic tests of central auditory function and their corresponding visual analogs. The study sought to determine whether deficits observed in the (C)APD group were restricted to the auditory modality and the degree to which the addition of visual analogs aids in the ability to differentiate among groups. Research Design: An experimental repeated measures design was employed. Study Sample: Participants consisted of three groups of right-handed children (normal control, n = 10; ADHD, n = 10; (C)APD, n = 7) with normal and symmetrical hearing sensitivity, normal or corrected-to-normal visual acuity, and no family or personal history of disorders unrelated to their primary diagnosis. Participants in Groups 2 and 3 met current diagnostic criteria for ADHD and (C)APD. Data Collection and Analysis: Visual analogs of three tests in common clinical use for the diagnosis of (C)APD were used (Dichotic Digits [Musiek, 1983]; Frequency Patterns [Pinheiro and Ptacek, 1971]; and Duration Patterns [Pinheiro and Musiek, 1985]). Participants underwent two 1 hr test sessions separated by at least 1 wk. Order of sessions (auditory, visual) and tests within each session were counterbalanced across participants. ANCOVAs (analyses of covariance) were used to examine effects of group, modality, and laterality (Dichotic/Dichoptic Digits) or response condition (auditory and visual patterning). In addition, planned univariate ANCOVAs were used to examine effects of group on intratest comparison measures (REA, HLD [Humming-Labeling Differential]). Results: Children with both ADHD and (C)APD performed more poorly overall than typically developing children on all tasks, with the (C)APD group exhibiting the poorest performance on the auditory and visual patterns tests but the ADHD and (C)APD group performing similarly on the Dichotic/Dichoptic Digits task. However, each of the auditory and visual intratest comparison measures, when taken individually, was able to distinguish the (C)APD group from both the normal control and ADHD groups, whose performance did not differ from one another. Conclusions: Results underscore the importance of intratest comparison measures in the interpretation of central auditory tests (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], 2005; American Academy of Audiology [AAA], 2010). Results also support the “non-modular” view of (C)APD in which cross-modal deficits would be predicted based on shared neuroanatomical substrates. Finally, this study demonstrates that auditory tests alone are sufficient to distinguish (C)APD from supra-modal disorders, with cross-modal analogs adding little if anything to the differential diagnostic process.

Paranoidism and memory deficits: An epidemiological study

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. S569-S569
Author(s):  
C.M. Calahorro ◽  
M. Guerrero Jiménez ◽  
B.M. Girela Serrano ◽  
J.E. Muñoz Negro
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Verbal Learning ◽  
Multidisciplinary Treatment ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Psychotic Symptoms ◽  
Attention And Memory ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference

BackgroundThe Green et al. Paranoid Thought Scales (GPTS) was developed to fulfill a need for a tool that was adapted to the current dimensional definition of paranoia, capable to assess dimensions of preoccupation, conviction, and distress, valid and reliable for the assessment of both clinical and healthy populations, and precise enough to detect subtle clinical change. It has recently been validated for the Spanish population (S-GPTS) with very good psychometric properties. Numerous studies suggest that patients with severe psychiatric disorders have impaired sustained attention and memory. A wide spectrum of executive deficits have also been described (goal-oriented tasks, recognizing priority patterns, planning, etc.) Very few studies have attempted to identify whether these same relationships between neuropsychological deficits and psychotic symptoms also occur in general population.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study. We undertook a multistage sampling using different standard stratification levels and out of the 5496 eligible participants finally approached, 4507 (83.7%) agreed to take part in the study, completed the interview and were finally included in the study (n = 4507).ResultsIndividuals with high cut off S-GPTS scores showed lower scores in working memory subtest verbal statistically significant(P > .05). While no significant difference was found among for immediate verbal learning subtest and high S-GPTS scores (P > .05654).DiscussionThis information can improve the clinician's understanding of patient's cognitive strength and weaknesses, put patients’ cognitive abilities into perspective for their diagnosis, and facilitate multidisciplinary treatment decisions as we improve our ability to distinguish clinical cases from non-clinical population.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Evaluating Part V of the German version of the Token Test as a screening of specific language impairment in preschoolers

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 237-258
Author(s):  
Michaela Schmoeger ◽  
Matthias Deckert ◽  
Brigitte Eisenwort ◽  
Benjamin Loader ◽  
Annemarie Hofmair ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Attention And Memory ◽  
German Version ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Token Test

AbstractSpecific language impairment (SLI) is a very common childhood disorder that is characterized by impairments in expressive and/or receptive language regarding different modalities. Part V of the German version of the Token Test was evaluated as a potential screening tool for the early detection of SLI. Forty-five male and 16 female monolingual native German-speaking preschoolers with SLI (4–6 years) and 61 age- and gender-matched typically developing controls were examined with a German version of the Token Test and an established intelligence measure. Token Test performance was significantly worse in preschoolers with SLI including greater group differences at age 4 than at ages 5 and 6. Analyses showed a detection rate of 77% for Part V of the Token Test in the whole sample as well as 85.1% at age 4, 80.6% at age 5, and a nonsignificant detection at age 6. Correctly detected preschoolers with SLI showed significantly worse performance than typically developing controls regarding nonverbal and verbal intelligence, numeracy, problem solving, working memory, visual attention, and memory. Children with SLI show worse Token Test performance, whereas at ages 4 and 5, Part V of the Token Test could potentially serve as a screening tool for the detection of SLI.

Consequences of Stimulus Type on Higher-Order Processing in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 305-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mareike Finke ◽  
Pascale Sandmann ◽  
Hanna Bönitz ◽  
Andrej Kral ◽  
Andreas Büchner
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Order Processing ◽  
Objective Evidence ◽  
Word Classification ◽  
Related Potentials

Single-sided deaf subjects with a cochlear implant (CI) provide the unique opportunity to compare central auditory processing of the electrical input (CI ear) and the acoustic input (normal-hearing, NH, ear) within the same individual. In these individuals, sensory processing differs between their two ears, while cognitive abilities are the same irrespectively of the sensory input. To better understand perceptual-cognitive factors modulating speech intelligibility with a CI, this electroencephalography study examined the central-auditory processing of words, the cognitive abilities, and the speech intelligibility in 10 postlingually single-sided deaf CI users. We found lower hit rates and prolonged response times for word classification during an oddball task for the CI ear when compared with the NH ear. Also, event-related potentials reflecting sensory (N1) and higher-order processing (N2/N4) were prolonged for word classification (targets versus nontargets) with the CI ear compared with the NH ear. Our results suggest that speech processing via the CI ear and the NH ear differs both at sensory (N1) and cognitive (N2/N4) processing stages, thereby affecting the behavioral performance for speech discrimination. These results provide objective evidence for cognition to be a key factor for speech perception under adverse listening conditions, such as the degraded speech signal provided from the CI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document