Advertisement

Binaural Interaction Component of Middle Latency Response in Children Suspected to Central Auditory Processing Disorder

  • Farzaneh Zamiri AbdollahiEmail author
  • Yones Lotfi
  • Abdollah Moosavi
  • Enayatollah Bakhshi
Original Article

Abstracts

Binaural processing disorder is an important deficit in children with (C)APD so binaural processing evaluations are crucial. There are subjective and objective tests for assessing binaural processing. Subjective tests require patient attention and active so objective evaluation of binaural processing is important. The aim of present study was investigating binaural interaction component (BIC) of middle latency response (MLR) in children suspected to (C)APD. Sixty 8–12 year-old children suspected to (C)APD and sixty normal children were selected based on inclusion criteria. Both groups were matched in terms of sex (40 boys and 20 girls) and age (9.05 ± 1.25 years old). MLR test (monaural right ear, monaural left ear and binaural) was performed in all the cases and BIC was calculated by subtracting binaural response from summed monaural responses. Independent t test showed that latency of Pa and Na (ms), Pa–Na amplitude (µv), BIC latency (ms) and amplitude (µv) were significantly different from normal subjects (p value ≤0.001). Present study showed that MLR and BIC of MLR are clinically available and objective tests that can be used to determining children suspected to (C)APD. These tests might have the potential to separating normal children from children with (C)APD objectively.

Keywords

Central auditory processing Auditory middle latency response Binaural interaction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank our colleague Dr. Saeedeh Mehrkian who greatly assisted the research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the institutional research committee (USWR ethic approval) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants and their parents included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Strauss DJ, Delb W, Plinkert PK (2004) Analysis and detection of binaural interaction in auditory evoked brainstem responses by time-scale representations. Comput Biol Med 34(6):461–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jerger J et al (1999) Twin study of central auditory processing disorder. J Am Acad Audiol 10:521–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jerger J et al (1991) Central auditory processing disorder: a case study. J Am Acad Audiol 2(1):36–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gopal KV, Pierel K (1999) Binaural interaction component in children at risk for central auditory processing disorders. Scand Audiol 28(2):77–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernstein LR (2001) Auditory processing of interaural timing information: new insights. J Neurosci Res 66(6):1035–1046CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ij W et al (2007) Auditory evoked potentials in the detection of interaural intensity differences in children and adults. Ear Hear 28(3):320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leigh-Paffenroth ED, Roup CM, Noe CM (2011) Behavioral and electrophysiologic binaural processing in persons with symmetric hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 22(3):181–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005) (Central) auditory processing disorders. ASHA technical report. http://www.asha.org/policy/tr2005-00043.html. Accessed 18 Nov 2016
  9. 9.
    Delb W, Plinkert PK, Strauss DJ (2004) A time–frequency feature extraction scheme for the automated detection of binaural interaction in auditory brainstem responses. Int J Audiol 43(2):69–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goksoy C, Demirtas S, Ungan P (2004) Dynamics of the contralateral white noise-induced enhancement in the guinea pig’s middle latency response. Brain Res 1017(1–2):61–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nejati V et al (2016) Persian version of the dichotic digit test for children: design and evaluation of the psychometric properties. Audit Vestib Res 25(1):55–62Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sanayi R et al (2013) Auditory temporal processing abilities in early Azari-Persian bilinguals. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 25(73):227PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aarabi S, Jarollahi F, Sh J (2016) Development and determination of the validity of Persian version of monaural selective auditory attention test in learning disabled children. Audit Vestib Res 25(1):49–54Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Domitz DM, Schow RL (2000) A new CAPD battery—multiple auditory processing assessment factor analysis and comparisons with SCAN. Am J Audiol 9(2):101–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ebadi E et al (2016) Development and evaluation of the Persian version of the multiple auditory processing assessment. Audit Vestib Res 25(2):75–81Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Musiek FE, Chermak GD (2013) Handbook of central auditory processing disorder, volume I: auditory neuroscience and diagnosis, vol 1. Plural Publishing, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lotfi Y et al (2016) Effects of an auditory lateralization training in children suspected to central auditory processing disorder. J Audiol Otol 20(2):102–108CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jerger J, Johnson K (1988) Interactions of age, gender, and sensorineural hearing loss on ABR latency. Ear Hear 9(4):168–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miličić D et al (1998) A study of auditory afferent organization in children with dyslalia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 46(1):43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marvel JB, Jerger JF, Lew HL (1992) Asymmetries in topographic brain maps of auditory-evoked potentials in the elderly. J Am Acad Audiol 3:361–368PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schochat E et al (2010) Effect of auditory training on the middle latency response in children with (central) auditory processing disorder. Braz J Med Biol Res 43(8):777–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Purdy SC, Kelly AS, Davies MG (2002) Auditory brainstem response, middle latency response, and late cortical evoked potentials in children with learning disabilities. J Am Acad Audiol 13(7):367–382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arehole S, Augustine LE, Simhadri R (1995) Middle latency response in children with learning disabilities: preliminary findings. J Commun Disord 28(1):21–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gunnarson AD, Finitzo T (1991) Conductive hearing loss during infancy: effects on later auditory brain stem electrophysiology. J Speech Hear Res 34(5):1207–1215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Delb W et al (2003) The binaural interaction component (BIC) in children with central auditory processing disorders (CAPD): El componente de interactión binaural (BIC) en niños con desórdenes del procesamiento central auditivo (CAPD). Int J Audiol 42(7):401–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laska M et al (1992) Maturation of binaural interaction components in auditory brainstem responses of young guinea pigs with monaural or binaural conductive hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 249(6):325–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pratt H et al (1998) Effects of localized pontine lesions on auditory brain-stem evoked potentials and binaural processing in humans. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Evoked Potentials Sect 108(5):511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Audiology DepartmentUniversity of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation SciencesTehranIran
  2. 2.Otolaryngology DepartmentIran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  3. 3.Biostatistics DepartmentUniversity of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations