11/13/2017
1
Auditory Processing Disorder: an overview
Josée Lagacé, Ph.D.Associate Professor and Audiologist
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
REFERENCES
▪ Canadian Interorganizational Steering Group for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. (2012). Canadian guidelines on auditory processing disorder in children and adults: assessment and intervention. Ottawa: Authors.
▪ British Society of Audiology. (2011). Practice Guidance. An overview of current management of auditory processing disorder (APD). Reading: Authors.
▪ American Academy of Audiology Clinical Practice Guidelines. (2010). Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management of Children and Adults with Central Auditory Processing Disorder. Reston:TaskForce Members.
▪ American Speech-Language Hearing Association. (2005). (Central) auditory processing disorders. Technical report: Working Group on Auditory Processing Disorders. Rockville: Authors.
Image from: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mbazerman/references.html
11/13/2017
2
OVERVIEW
▪ Definition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD)
▪ How do we identify the presence of APD in school aged children
▪ Therapeutic intervention strategies
▪ Case Study
▪ Frequently asked questions
Images from :http://www.internationalministries.org/read/40343
https://teachingteacher.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/ten-steps-to-effective-classroom-listening/
Auditory Processing
Image from: https://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/2012/497/gallun2497.html
Image from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Delano/publication/282436992/figure/fig2/AS:289262537854982@1445976971329/Figure-1-Schematic-diagram-of-the-auditory-efferent-network-Ascending-and-descending.png
11/13/2017
3
▪ Localization and lateralization
▪ Auditory discrimination
▪ Auditory pattern recognition
▪ Temporal processing • Temporal resolution • Temporal masking• Temporal integration • Temporal ordering
▪ Recognition of degraded acoustical signals
▪ Recognition of acoustic signals presented with competitive stimuli
Reference: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005). (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders [Technical Report].
Auditory abilities
Binaural interaction
Images fromhttp://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/anp/v73n4//0004-282X-anp-73-4-0314-gf01.jpghttp://www.zoundswi.com/uploads/zoundsdifference2.png
Essential mechanism for : - localization- signal detection in noise
11/13/2017
4
▪ Localization and lateralization
▪ Auditory discrimination
▪ Auditory pattern recognition
▪ Temporal processing • Temporal resolution • Temporal masking• Temporal integration • Temporal ordering
▪ Recognition of degraded acoustical signals
▪ Recognition of acoustic signals presented with competitive stimuli
Reference: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005). (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders [Technical Report].
Auditory abilities
Auditory Processing Disorder
Image from: https://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/2012/497/gallun2497.html
Image from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Delano/publication/282436992/figure/fig2/AS:289262537854982@1445976971329/Figure-1-Schematic-diagram-of-the-auditory-efferent-network-Ascending-and-descending.png
11/13/2017
5
Common Symptoms
- Difficulty understanding spoken language in competing messages, noisy backgrounds, or in reverberant environments
- Misunderstanding messages
- Inconsistent or inappropriate responding
- Frequent requests for repetitions, saying « what »
« huh » frequently
- Taking longer to respond
- Difficulty paying attention
- Being easily distracted
Image from: https://www.healthxchange.sg/sites/hexassets/Assets/children/auditory-processing-disorder-when-sounds-dont-make-sense.jpg
Reference: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005). (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders [Technical Report].
Common Symptoms (continued)
- Difficulty following complex auditory directions or commands
- Difficulty localizing sounds
- Language development often compromised
- Academic performance below what would be expected (considering intellectual abilities)
- Hypersensitivity to sounds (even not so loud sounds)
Image from: https://www.healthxchange.sg/sites/hexassets/Assets/children/auditory-processing-disorder-when-sounds-dont-make-sense.jpg
Reference: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005). (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders [Technical Report].
11/13/2017
6
APD- Difficulty understanding spoken language in competing
messages, noisy backgrounds, or in reverberant environments
- Misunderstanding messages
- Inconsistent or inappropriate responding
- Frequent requests for repetitions
- Taking longer to respond
- Difficulty paying attention
- Being easily distracted
- Difficulty following complex auditory directions
- Difficulty localizing sounds
- Language development often compromised
- Academic performance below what would be expected (considering intellectual abilities)
- Hypersensitivity to sounds (even not so loud sounds)
LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
- Misunderstanding messages
- Inconsistent or inappropriate responding
- Frequent requests for repetitions
- Taking longer to respond
- Academic performance below what would be expected (considering intellectual abilities)
APD- Difficulty understanding spoken language in competing
messages, noisy backgrounds, or in reverberant environments
- Misunderstanding messages
- Inconsistent or inappropriate responding
- Frequent requests for repetitions
- Taking longer to respond
- Difficulty paying attention
- Being easily distracted
- Difficulty following complex auditory directions
- Difficulty localizing sounds
- Language development often compromised
- Academic performance below what would be expected (considering intellectual abilities)
- Hypersensitivity to sounds (even not so loud sounds)
ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER
- Frequent requests for repetitions
- Difficulty paying attention
- Being easily distracted
- Difficulty following complex auditory directions
- Academic performance below what would be expected (considering intellectual abilities)
11/13/2017
7
APD is rarely an isolated condition
- almost ½ of children referred for suspicion of auditory processing disorder fail auditory, reading and language test batteries (Sharma et al., 2009)
- 40 and 60% of children diagnosed with APD also showed indications of attention deficits (Jutras et al., 2007; Riccio et al., 1996; Riccio et al., 1994).
- 20% and 50% of the children diagnosed with APD have reading problems(Dawes et al., 2009; Dawes & Bishop, 2010)
REFERENCESDawes, P. & Bishop, D.V. (2010). Psychometric profile of children with auditory processing disorder and children of dyslexia. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 95, 432-436. Dawes, P. et al. (2009). Temporal auditory and visual motion processing of children diagnosed with auditory processing disorder and dyslexia. Ear & Hearing, 30, 675-686.Jutras, B. et al. (2007). Applicability of central auditory processing models. American Journal of Audiology, 16, 100-108. Riccio, C.A., Cohen, M.J., Hynd, G.W., & Keith, R.W. (1996). Validity of the Auditory Continuous Performance Test in differentiating central processing auditory disorders with and without
ADHD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 561-566.Riccio, C.A., Hynd, G.W., Cohen, M.J., Hall, J., & Molt, L. (1994). Comorbidity of central auditory processing disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 849-8‐57.Sharma, M., Purdy, S.C., & Kelly, A.S. (2009) Comorbidity of auditory processing, language, and reading disorders. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 52, 706-722.
OVERVIEW
▪ Definition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD)
▪ How do we identify the presence of APD in school aged children
▪ Therapeutic intervention strategies
▪ Case Study
▪ Frequently asked questions
Images from :http://www.internationalministries.org/read/40343
https://teachingteacher.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/ten-steps-to-effective-classroom-listening/
11/13/2017
8
SCREENING FOR APD
Image from: http://successforkidswithhearingloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Depositphotos_7550052_xl.jpg
▪ Fisher’s Auditory Problems Checklist (FAPC; Fisher, 1976)
▪ Screening Instrument for Targeting Educational Risk (SIFTER; Anderson, 1989)
▪ Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale (CHAPPS; Smoski, Brunt &Tannahill, 1998)
▪ Children’s Home Inventory of Listening Difficulties (CHILD; Anderson & Smaldino, 2000)
▪ Scale of Auditory Behaviors (SAB; Schow & Seikel, 2006)
▪ Test of Auditory Perceptual Skills-Revised (TAPS-R; Wilson et al., 2011)
▪ Listening Inventory for Education-Revised *(LIFE-R; Anderson, Smaldino, & Spangler, 2011)
QUESTIONNAIRES
Image from:https://cdn.outsource2india.com/kpo/images/questionnaire-design.png
11/13/2017
9
CASE HISTORY
Should include (but not limited to):▪ pre-, peri-, and postnatal information
▪ speech and language development (communication, listening, and auditory behavior);
▪ physical development milestones
▪ otological history (incidence of middle ear problems, interventions)
▪ general health (medications, allergies)
▪ educational achievement
▪ prior related therapies and current treatments
▪ social development and psychological factors
▪ linguistic background
▪ information on the subject’s family/genetic history (history of learning and hearing difficulties)
REFERENCE: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005). (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders [Technical Report]
STANDARD AUDIOMETRIC ASSESSMENT
- Pure tone audiometry (preferably with interoctave 3 & 6 kHz)
- Immittance battery with both ipsilateral and contralateral acoustic reflexes
- Otoacoustic emissions
- Speech recognition testing – in quiet
Image from: http://aja.pubs.asha.org/data/Journals/AJA/934174/AJA_24_2_250fig0.jpeg
11/13/2017
10
ASSESSMENT OF THE AUDITORY ABILITIES
Test categories: (Musiek & Chermak, 2014)
▪ Binaural Interaction Tests ▪ Dichotic Speech Tests▪ Monaural Low-Redundancy Speech Tests▪ Temporal Processing Tests
Auditory abilities:(ASHA, 2005)
▪ Localization and lateralization▪ Auditory discrimination ▪ Auditory pattern recognition▪ Temporal processing − Temporal resolution − Temporal masking− Temporal integration − Temporal ordering
▪ Recognition of degraded acoustical signals▪ Recognition of acoustic signals presented
with competitive stimuli
REFERENCE:American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005). (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders [Technical Report]. Musiek, F.E. & Chermak, G.D. (2014). Handbook of Central Auditory Processing Disorder – Auditory Neurosciences and Diagnosis. Volume 1 (second edition). San Diego: Plural Publishing.
ASSESSMENT OF AUDITORY ABILITIES
Test categories: (Musiek & Chermak, 2014)
Binaural Interaction Tests (MLD)
Dichotic Speech Tests (DD, SSW)
Monaural Low-Redundancy Speech Tests (Filtered speech test, LISN, HINT, SSI-ICM, quick SIN, WIN)
Temporal Processing
- Temporal Patterning (PPST, DPST)
- Temporal Resolution Tests (RGDT, GIN)
Auditory abilities:(ASHA, 2005)
▪ Localization and lateralization (MLD, DD, SSW, LISN, HINT)
▪ Auditory discrimination (PPST, DPST)
▪ Auditory pattern recognition
▪ Temporal processing • Temporal resolution (RGDT, GIN)• Temporal masking• Temporal integration • Temporal ordering (PPST, DPST, SSW)
▪ Recognition of degraded acoustical signals (Filtered speech test..)
▪ Recognition of acoustic signals presented with competitive stimuli (LISN, HINT, SSI-ICM, quick SIN, WIN)
11/13/2017
11
TEST BATTERY
•Binaural Interaction Tests (MLD)
•Dichotic Speech Tests (DD, SSW)
•Monaural Low-Redundancy Speech Tests
(Filtered speech test, LISN, HINT, SSI-ICM,
quick SIN, WIN)
•Temporal Processing Temporal Patterning (PPST, DPST)
Temporal Resolution (RGDT, GIN)
GOAL: to develop representative and age-appropriate normative data and to propose which of the these tests should remain in a final tests battery for identifying APD in Norwegian children aged 7-12 years
PARTICIPANTS: 268 children aged 7-12 years (mean: 9.5 years). All were native speakers of Norwegian and 4 of the children were native speakers of two languages. English as a second language (from age 7 – learned at school). Children with diagnosis of attention disorder or autistic spectrum disorder were excluded from the study. Normal pure-tone threshold ( 20 dB HL) from 250 to 6000 Hz.
* Essentially 43-45 children per age group
11/13/2017
12
PROCEDURE:Monaural low redundancy speech tests
- Filtered Words (FW; Keith, 2000) - HIST Speech in Noise test (HIST SIN; Øygarden, 2009)
Binaural Interaction tests- Masking Level Difference (MLD)
Binaural Integration of speech signals (Dichotic test)- Dichotic Digits (DD; Musiek, 1983) - Competing Words (CW; Keith, 2000)
Temporal processing - Gaps In Noise test (GIN, Musiek et al., 2005)- Frequency Pattern test (FP; Musiek & Pinheiro, 1987)- Duration Pattern test (DP; Musiek et al., 1990)
.
RESULTS:
11/13/2017
13
RESULTS: DP & FP
7 years(n=48)
8 years(n=45)
9-10 years(n= 88)
11-12 years(n=87)
Mean SD 2.5 perc.
Mean SD 2.5 perc.
Mean SD 2.5 perc.
Mean SD 2.5 perc.
Left 27.0 17.8 4 30.3 15.8 7 45.3 21.9 9 51.6 21.3 17
Right 22.2 15.3 3 25.8 14.6 5 39.9 17.8 12 50.1 21.2 17
Left 33.6 23.3 5 38.6 15.1 10 49.3 24.6 9 66.6 24 19
Right 29.2 22.3 7 35 15.4 10 48.3 21.4 15 64.3 23 20
DP
FP
TEST BATTERY
•Binaural Interaction Tests (MLD)
•Dichotic Speech Tests (DD, SSW)
•Monaural Low-Redundancy Speech Tests
(Filtered speech test, LISN, HINT, SSI-ICM, quick SIN, WIN)
•Temporal ProcessingTemporal Patterning (PPST, DPST)Temporal Resolution (RGDT, GIN)
11/13/2017
14
GOAL: To compare 4 tests used in clinical settings to assess temporal resolution
PARTICIPANTS: 10 children with normal hearing (mean age = 8.7 years
METHODS: Auditory Fusion Test-Revised (AFTR)Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT)Binaural Fusion Test (BFT)Gaps-in-noise Test (GIN)
RESULTS: all tests yielded comparable results (normal temporal resolution ability)
11/13/2017
15
RGDT GIN
PRESENTATION MODE Binaural Monaural
PRESENTATION LEVEL 55 dB HL 50 dB SL (Re.: PTA)
RESPONSE MODE Verbal Motor
TOTAL TEST TIME 10 min.(if tones only: 6 min)
20 minutes
COMPARISON: RGDT & GIN
TEST BATTERY
•Binaural Interaction Tests (MLD)
•Dichotic Speech Tests (DD, SSW)
•Monaural Low-Redundancy Speech Tests
(Filtered speech test, LISN, HINT, SSI-ICM, quick SIN, WIN)
•Temporal Processing Test (GIN)
11/13/2017
16
BINAURAL INTERACTION
MASKING LEVEL DIFFERENCE TEST (MLD)
- “Masking Level Difference” - improvement in detecting a tone (or speech) in noise when the phase of the tone or the noise is reversed by 180 degrees
- MLD is a low frequency phenomenon : test is conducted with a 500 Hz pure tone
- A recorded version is available through Auditec
DICHOTIC LISTENING TESTS
DICHOTIC DIGITS Test (DD) (Musiek, 1983)
Two digits pair (i.e., four digits) typically are presented, with one digit of each pair is being delivered to each ear in an overlapping manner, and the person is asked to repeat all digits perceived
The DD includes age-specific normative data for ages 7 and up.
Is available through Auditec
A similar version has been developed in Canadian French (Test d’écoute dichotique de chiffres; Jutras et al., 2012)
REFERENCESMusiek, F.E. (1983). Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear & Hearing, 4, 70-83.Jutras, B., Mayer, D., Joannette, E., Carrier, M.-E. & Chénard, G. (2012). Assessing, the develpment of binaural integration ability with French dichotic digit test: Écoute dichotique de chiffres. American Journal of Audiology, 21, 51-59.
11/13/2017
17
STAGGERED SPONDAIC WORD TEST (SSW) (Katz, 1962)
Two different spondees are presented to each ear. The stimuli are temporally offset relative to each other, such that 2nd syllable of the 1st spondee overlaps with the 1st syllable of the 2nd spondee. The person is asked to repeat the 2 spondees (or 4 monosyllabic words)
The SSW includes age-specific normative data for ages 7 and up
Is available through Precision acoustics
A similar version has been developed in Canadian French (Test SSW)(Normandin & Rudmin, 1983)
REFERENCES:Katz J. 1962. The use of staggered spondaic words for assessing the integrity of central auditory system. J Aud Res , 2327 – 2337.Rudmin F. & Normandin N. 1983. Experimental dichotic tests in French modeled on SSW design. Hum Commun Can , 7, 348 – 360.
DICHOTIC LISTENING TESTS
MONAURAL LOW REDUNDANCY SPEECH TESTS
LOW-PASS FILTERED SPEECH TEST (FST)
There are different recordings available
FST are useful to assess auditory skills because they simulated listening in poor (degraded) listening conditions and therefore reveal functional deficit
No similar version is available in Canadian French
11/13/2017
18
MONAURAL LOW REDUNDANCY SPEECH TESTS (2)
LISTENING IN SPATIALIZED NOISE – SENTENCE TEST (LISN-S) (Cameron & Dillon, 2007)
- The LISN-S has been designed to assess the ability of children to understand speech in noise. Specifically measures the ability of children to segregate a target speech signal from simultaneously presented competing speech signals
- Normative data available for the North American context (Brown & al., 2010)
- No similar version is available in Canadian French
Reference: Brown, D.K., Cameron, S., Martin, J.S., Watson, C. & Dillon, H. (2010). The North American Listeningin Spatialized Noise – Sentences Test (NA LiSN-S): normative data and test-retest reliability studiesfor adolescents and young adults. JAAA, 21, 629-641Cameron S, Dillon H. Development of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (LISN-S). Ear Hear. 2007;28(2):196-211.
MONAURAL LOW REDUNDANCY SPEECH TESTS (3)
HEARING IN NOISE TEST (HINT) (Nilsson, Soli and Sullivan, 1994)
- Scoring is based on the correct repetition of entire sentences to determine the SRT for sentences
- Under headphones or in a sound field by measuring SRTs in quiet and in 3 noise conditions: (a) noise front (NF, speech and noise in front at 0° azimuth)(b) noise right (NR, speech in front and noise at 90° azimuth)(c) noise left (NL, speech in front and noise at 270°azimuth)
- Spatial separation advantage can be obtained by subtracting noise side (NS) score from NF
- This measure highlights the advantage associated with the spatial separation of speech and noise sources for understanding speech in noise
- HINT has been adapted in many languages including Canadian French - Vaillancourt et al., 2008 (children version) and Vaillancourt et al., 2005 (adult version)
REFERENCESNilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. JASA, 95, 1085–1099.Vaillancourt, V., Laroche, C., Giguère, C. et Soli, S.D. (2008). Establishment of age-specific normative data for the Canadian French version of the Hearing in Noise Test for Children, Ear & Hearing, 29, 453-466.Vaillancourt, V., Laroche, C., Mayer, C., Basque, C., Nali, M., Eriks-Brophy, A., Soli, S. D. et Giguère, C. (2005). Adaptation of the HINT (Nearing in Noise Test) for adult Canadian Francophone populations. IJA, 44(6), 358-369.
11/13/2017
19
MONAURAL LOW REDUNDANCY SPEECH TESTS (4)
SYNTHETIC SENTENCE IDENTIFICATION WITH IPSILATERAL COMPETING MESSAGE (SSI-ICM) (Jerger & Jerger, 1974)
- consists of presenting sentences that are altered from the standard rules of grammar and syntax, called 3rd order sentences, along with an ipsilateral continuous discourse
- sentences are presented at at fixed level and the level of the competitive continuous discourse is varied – SNR: +10, 0, -10 and -20
- a similar version is available in Canadian French (Lynch & Normandin, 1983)
Sample of SSI sentences
REFERENCES:Jerger, J. F., & Jerger, S. W. (1974). Auditory findings in brainstem disorders. Archives of Otolaryngology, 99, 342–349.Lynch A. & Normandin N. (1983). SSI: É laboration d’une version française et application auprès d’une population d’enfants avec troubles d’apprentissage. Master’s thesis, University of Montreal, Canada.
BAMFORD-KOWAL-BENCH SPEECH-IN-NOISE TEST (BKB-SIN)(Etymōtic Research, 2005; Bench, Kowal & Bamford, 1979)
The BKB-SIN test is a speech in noise test for children (ages 5 and up) - measures SNR loss (increase in SNR required by an individual to understand speech in noise
Uses the BKB sentences (List 1-8: 10 sentences, List 9-18: 8 sentences) and a 4-talker babble
Normative data for children 5 to 14
Available through Auditec
No similar version is available in Canadian French
MONAURAL LOW REDUNDANCY SPEECH TESTS (5)
REFERENCES:Etymotic Research. (2005). Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test (Version 1.03)-User manual; Retrieved fromhttp://www.etymotic.com/ pdf/ bkbsin-user-manual.pdf Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J. (1979). The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol. 13, 108-12.
11/13/2017
20
MONAURAL LOW REDUNDANCY SPEECH TESTS (6)
WORDS-IN-NOISE (WIN) TEST (Wilson, 2003)
The Words-in-Noise (WIN) test uses monosyllabic words in seven signal-to-noise ratios of multitalker babble to evaluate the ability of individuals to understand speech in background noise
The level of the babble is fixed and words are presented at 7 SNR from 24 to 0 dB in 4 dB decrements. Words (10 words by levels) are from the NU Auditory Test No. 6 (Tillman & Carhart, 1966)
spoken by a female speaker.
The metric of interest is the SNR at which recognition performance is 50%
Available through http://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/nih-toolbox
A similar version is available in Canadian French ( Test de Mots dans le Bruit) (Lagacé et al., 2013)
REFERENCESLagacé, J., LeBlanc, L., Boisvert, V., Arseneau, M. J. et Breau-Godwin, S. (2013). Mise à jour sur le développement du Testde Mots dans le Bruit, Acoustique Canadienne, 41, 65-72. Tillman, T. W., & Carhart, R. (1966, June). An Expanded Test for Speech Discrimination Utilizing CNC Monosyllabic Words. Northwestern UniversityAuditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55 (pp. 1–12). Base, TX: U.S. Air Force. Wilson, R. H. (2003). Development of a speech in multitalker babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 14, 453–470.
TEST BATTERY
•Binaural Interaction Tests (MLD)
•Dichotic Speech Tests (DD, SSW)
•Monaural Low-Redundancy Speech Tests
(Filtered speech test, LISN, HINT, SSI-ICM, quick SIN, WIN)
•Temporal Processing Test (GIN)
11/13/2017
21
INTERPRETATION OF AUDITORY ABILITIES &
CLINICAL CONCLUSION
• … APD is characterized by abnormal performance on tests of auditory processing must be based on performance below cut‐off scores (commonly performance deficits of at least 2 SD below the mean) on at least 2 tests…
• … if results of only one test are below cut‐off scores to identify APD, stricter criteria of performance deficits on one test of at least 3 SD
• … when a 1st evaluation is completed and abnormal results are obtained, it is preferable to use the term “delay” in the development of auditory capacities or
“hypothesis of APD”
▪ The conclusion of APD should rely on results of subsequent evaluation
REFERENCES: Canadian Interorganizational Steering Group for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology (2012). Canadian Guidelines on Auditory Processing Disorder in Children and Adults: Assessment and Intervention [Professional Guidelines]American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005). (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders [Technical Report
FOLLOW-UP
▪ When AP delay or APD has been identified, re-evaluations at least every 2 years are strongly recommended
REFERENCES: Canadian Interorganizational Steering Group for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. (2012). Canadian guidelines on auditory processing disorder in children and adults: assessment and intervention. Ottawa: AuthorsIMAGE FROMhttp://tampachildrensent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Untitled1.png
11/13/2017
22
PERSONNAL FACTORS
- ATTENTION
- MEMORY
- MULTI- OR BILINGUALISM
- MOTIVATION
- SLEEP
Image fromhttps://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-the-concept-of-modern-education-infographic-template-with-silhouette-child-head-abstract-brain-191894966.jpg
ATTENTION - Auditory Continuous Performance Test (ACPT; Keith 1994)
▪ Was developed to screen for auditory attention deficits in children 6 through 11
▪ The child listens to a list of words and raises a thumb every time he or she hears the target word (dog)
▪ Available through Auditec
11/13/2017
23
MEMORY
▪ CELF™ - Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (Elisabeth H. Wiig, Eleanor Semel, Wayne A. Secord)
Subtests: Number repetition & Sentence repetition
▪ AUDITORY SEQUENTIAL MEMORY TEST (Wepman & Morency, 1973) – for children of 5 to 8 years
▪ DIGIT SPAN (DS) - subtest WISC (children version of Wechsler, 1949, 1991)
MULTI- OR BILINGUALISM
11/13/2017
24
MOTIVATION
SLEEP
RECOMMANDATIONS 6 – 13 years 9 to 11 hours
11/13/2017
25
Participants: 30 adults 31 years (± 7)
Methods: 24 hours - no sleep for 24 hr
BSL : pre-APD measures
24hSD: post measures
BMC Neuroscience, 2012, 13, 83
SLEEP
OVERVIEW
▪ Definition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD)
▪ How do we identify the presence of APD in school aged children
▪Therapeutic intervention strategies
▪ Case Study
▪ Frequently asked questions
Images from :http://www.internationalministries.org/read/40343https://teachingteacher.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/ten-steps-to-effective-classroom-listening/
11/13/2017
26
THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
▪ Buffalo Model (Katz, 1992)▪ Decoding▪ Tolerance fading memory▪ Integration▪ Organization
▪ Bellis-Ferre Model (Bellis, 2003) ▪ Decoding▪ Integration▪ Prosodic
REFERENCES:Canadian Interorganizational Steering Group for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. (2012). Canadian guidelines on auditory processing disorder in children and adults: assessment and intervention. Ottawa: Authors.
Applicability of central auditory processing disorder models. Jutras, B., Dumont, V., Marcoux, C., Loubert, M., Dupuis, J.-L. & Baril, M. (2007). American Journal of Audiology, 16, 100-106.
GOAL: Verify the applicability of central auditory processing disorder models.
METHODS: retrospective study on 178 files of children with a diagnosis of APD
(48 were analyzed)
11/13/2017
27
0
20
40
60
80
100
APD APD-AD APD-ASS
APD-HL APD-AD-ASS
APD-AD-HL
Num
ber o
f chi
ldre
n 48
70
35
8 4 13
Cohorte(n = 178)
Applicability of central auditory processing disorder models. Jutras, B., Dumont, V., Marcoux, C., Loubert, M., Dupuis, J.-L. & Baril, M. (2007). American Journal of Audiology, 16, 100-106.
CASES:
0
20
40
60
80
100
DECODING TFM ORG
PER
CEN
TAG
E O
F C
HIL
DR
EN
60%
21%
6%
Applicability of central auditory processing disorder models. Jutras, B., Dumont, V., Marcoux, C., Loubert, M., Dupuis, J.-L. & Baril, M. (2007). American Journal of Audiology, 16, 100-106.
BUFFALO MODELRESULTS:
11/13/2017
28
Applicability of central auditory processing disorder models. Jutras, B., Dumont, V., Marcoux, C., Loubert, M., Dupuis, J.-L. & Baril, M. (2007). American Journal of Audiology, 16, 100-106.
0
20
40
60
80
100
DECODING PROSODIC INTEG ASSOC ORG na
PE
RC
EN
TAG
E O
F C
HIL
DR
EN
0% 0% 2% 2% 4%
92%BELLIS-FERRE MODEL
RESULTS:
THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTION STRATEGIES (2)
11/13/2017
29
Model for intervention to improve participation for individuals with APD
From: Canadian InterorganizationalSteering Group for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. (2012). Canadian guidelines on auditory processing disorder in children and adults: assessment and intervention. Ottawa: Authors.(Figure 2, p. 27)
ENVIRONNEMENTAL FACTORS TO IMPROVE PARTICIPATION
Physical environment and listening factors
- Partnerships
- Acoustics of the environment
- Assistive devices
Social and communication factors
- Support, attitudes & relationships
- Services, systems & policies
REFERENCE: Canadian Interorganizational Steering Group for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. (2012). Canadian guidelines on auditory processing disorder in children and adults: assessment and intervention. Ottawa: Authors.
11/13/2017
30
PERSONAL FACTORS TO IMPROVE PARTICIPATION
Improving capacity through direct training
Improving ability to be active in communication
REFERENCE: Canadian Interorganizational Steering Group for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. (2012). Canadian guidelines on auditoryprocessing disorder in children and adults: assessment and intervention. Ottawa: Authors.
IMAGE: https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAVEAAAAJDZlYmYzZGUxLWE1M2QtNGFjZi1iMzhhLWMwNDI3YTYyZDExOA.jpg
OVERVIEW
▪ Definition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD)
▪ How do we identify the presence of APD in school aged children
▪ Therapeutic intervention strategies
▪Case Study
▪ Frequently asked questions
Images from :http://www.internationalministries.org/read/40343https://teachingteacher.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/ten-steps-to-effective-classroom-listening/
11/13/2017
31
CASE STUDY
▪ JENNA - 8 years. Adoptive father reports that she has difficulties to stay attentive for long period of time and she is easily distracted by environmental noise
▪ JENNA – sits in the middle of the class (the teacher is moving around the classroom when teaching) & reports she has no difficulty understanding the teacher – when there is no background noise
▪ In grade 3 (regular academic program) – grades are « ok » according to father but her performance does not correspond to her intellectual capacity
▪ At home: Turkish and French
At school: French
After school care and friends: English & French
CASE STUDY (continued 2)
▪ RESULTS: peripheral hearing
Audiogram
Normal hearing threshold ( 20 dB HL) bilaterally from 0,25 to 8 kHz, including 3 & 6 kHz
Speech testing (in quiet)
Word recognition is excellent (100%) bilaterally at conversational level (50 dB HL – 25 words/ear).
Immitance measures
Normal tympanogram bilaterally
Acoustic reflex is present in both ears with ipsilateral stimulation at 85 dB HL (minimum level presented) at 0,5, 1 & 2 kHz, and contralateral stimulation at 90 dB HL (minimum level presented) at 0,5 & 1 kHz
11/13/2017
32
CASE STUDY (continued 3)
▪ RESULTS: peripheral hearing
Otoacoustic emissions
Distortion product otoacoustic emissions were within normal range bilaterally, suggesting outer good integrity of the inner hair cells
▪ RESULTS: Auditory abilities
Binaural interaction - MLD: within normal range
Dichotic speech tests - Dichotic Digits Test: within normal range bilaterally
- Staggered Spondaic Word (SSW) : below normal range bilaterally
Temporal processing - Gaps-In-Noise Test: within normal range bilaterally
Monaural low-redundancy speech test – Filtered Words (SCAN – subtest) - below normal range bilaterally
- BKB – SIN: below normal range
CASE STUDY (continued 4)
▪ RESULTS: Complementary tests
Screening – attention abilities – ACPT : within normal range
Screening – memory abilities – CELF - Number repetition : within normal range
▪ CONCLUSION:
Results suggest speech recognition in background noise
Considering the linguistic history of the child: underlying nature (cause) of the speech recognition difficulties can not be determined
Follow-up in one year
11/13/2017
33
CASE STUDY (continued 5)
▪ RECOMMENDATIONS:
Investigation in SLP, re.: language delay
Intervention strategies
▪ Considering speech recognition difficulties in noise and staying attentive for long period
- Environmental factors: FM trial + meeting with teacher
- Personnal factors: SLP + activities to improve language abilities (school)
▪ Considering speech recognition difficulties and reported difficulties when there is background noise
- Environmental and personal factors: Improving ability to be active in communication (8 audiology sessions)
OVERVIEW
▪ Definition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD)
▪ How do we identify the presence of APD in school aged children
▪ Therapeutic intervention strategies
▪ Case Study
▪ Frequently asked questions
Images from :http://www.internationalministries.org/read/40343https://teachingteacher.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/ten-steps-to-effective-classroom-listening/
11/13/2017
34
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
▪ When should I re-test a child with a diagnosis of APD?
▪ Should I test a child with a diagnosis of Language Disorder?
▪ Should I test a child with a peripheral hearing loss?
▪ How about electrophysiological measures?
Image from: http://lapoule.net/questionsdefilles/
THANK YOU!