Diagnostic accuracy of established central auditory processing test batteries in patients with documented brain lesions.
ABSTRACT The sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency of commonly used behavioral central auditory processing tests and test batteries were determined for 20 individuals with known lesions of the central auditory nervous system (CANS) and related auditory symptoms.
Twenty-nine individuals with no known neurological involvement served as the control group. Both groups were administered dichotic digits (DD), competing sentences (CS), frequency patterns (FP), and low-pass filtered speech (FS) tests.
Diagnostic indices for individual tests and test batteries comprised of two, three, or four tests were calculated both using a lax criterion in which failure on only one test in a battery led to a positive diagnosis and using a strict criterion in which failure on all tests in the battery was necessary to trigger a positive diagnosis.
The test battery providing the best balance between sensitivity and specificity varied as a function of criterion. The two-test DD-FP battery using a strict criterion demonstrated the best balance.
Limitations of particular tests, the advantages of larger test batteries to more broadly examine multiple auditory processes, the degree to which the present results can be generalized clinically to populations without known brain lesions, and other clinical considerations are discussed.
- SourceAvailable from: Caroline Nunes Rocha-Muniz[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We determined the sensitivity, specificity and efficiency of speech-evoked Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) as a diagnostic support for Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) and specific language impairment (SLI). Speech-evoked ABRs were elicited using the five-formant syllable/da/. The waveforms V, A, C, D, E, F, and O of all groups were analyzed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to determine the optimum cut-off. Seventy-five children who were native speakers of Brazilian-Portuguese participated. The participants included 25 children with APD, 25 children with SLI and 25 with typical development. Statistical analysis demonstrated a cut-off for latency values of 6.48, 7.51, 17.82, 22.33, 30.79, 39.54 and 48.00 for V, A, C, D, E, F, and O waves, respectively. The A wave exhibited superior balance for the APD group. For the SLI group, the A, D and O waves exhibited the best balance. Furthermore, when analyzing the APD and SLI groups separately, better sensitivity values were observed for the SLI group than the APD group. Speech-evoked ABR is a useful test to identify auditory processing disorders and language impairment. Furthermore, this study represented an important step forward in establishing the clinical utility of speech-evoked ABR in Brazilian Portuguese-speaking children.Hearing research. 09/2014;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The scope of this study was to trace of central auditory processing issues in patients with first episode psychosis using a psychoacoustic test battery approach. Patients were included in the study on the basis of normal hearing sensitivity. A central auditory processing battery was implemented consisting of monaural and binaural tests with verbal and non-verbal stimuli. Seventeen control subjects were volunteers with no personal or family history of schizophrenia. Seventeen (17) patients were tested to evaluate central auditory processing abilities. Perceptual deficits in both non-verbal and verbal auditory stimuli are reported in this study with temporal central auditory processing deficits and a mean left ear left ear advantage (LEA) being documented in the patient group. This study points to the possibility of existence of central auditory processing deficits in first episode psychosis leading to schizophrenia. Audiologists should be aware of the psychiatric research pointing to enhanced verbal memory as a result of auditory training; linking bottom-up remediation with top-down improvement.American Journal of Audiology 07/2013; · 0.87 Impact Factor