The effectiveness of central auditory processing rehabilitation program on speech reception in noise and dichotic listening in dyslexic students

  • Masumeh Ghasemi Mail Department of Psychology and Education of Exceptional Children, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
  • Saeed Hassanzadeh Department of Psychology and Education of Exceptional Children, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
  • Mohsen Shokoohi-Yekta Department of Psychology and Education of Exceptional Children, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
  • Gholamali Afrooz Department of Psychology and Education of Exceptional Children, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
  • Ali Akbar Tahaei Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Valiollah Farzad Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
Keywords:
Central auditory processing, dyslexia, speech reception in noise, dichotic listening

Abstract

Background and Aim: Auditory processing disorder and dyslexia have been reported by many studies as having high comorbidity. The purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of central auditory processing rehabilitation program on speech reception in noise and dichotic listening in dyslexic students. The research was quasi-experimental, including a pretest, posttest and a control group.
Methods: The population involved dyslexic elementary school students, studying in a learning disorder center in Tehran. Using convenience sampling method, 30 dyslexic students with central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) were selected and put into experimental and control groups. Speech in noise (SIN) test and dichotic digits test (DDT) were conducted in the pretest for all students. Central auditory processing rehabilitation program was designed in 12 steps with different practices. The experimental group received 15 sessions of central auditory processing rehabilitation program. Speech in noise test and dichotic digits tests were conducted again in the posttest for all students.
Results: The data analysis using repeated measures multi-variable analysis of variance indicated a significant difference among the mean scores of speech in noise and dichotic digits tests in the experimental and control groups (p˂0.05). The experimental group had gained better scores.
Conclusion: According to the results, the central auditory processing disorder rehabilitation program significantly enhanced speech reception in noise and dichotic listening in the dyslexic students.

References

1. Ramus F, Pidgeon E, Frith U. The relationship between motor control and phonology in dyslexic children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2003;44(5):712-22.
2. Snowling MJ. Developmental dyslexia. Current Paediatrics. 2001;11(1):10-3.
3. Bretherton L, Holmes VM. The relationship between auditory temporal processing, phonemic awareness, and reading disability. J Exp Child Psychol. 2003;84(3):218-43.
4. Serniclaes W, Sprenger-Charolles L, Carré R, Demonet JF. Perceptual discrimination of speech sounds in developmental dyslexia. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;44(2):384-99.
5. Griffiths YM, Snowling MJ. Auditory word identification and phonological skills in dyslexic and average readers. Appl Psycholinguist. 2001;22(3):419-39.
6. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2005. (central) auditory processing disorders [Technical Report]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
7. Boets B, Vandermosten M, Poelmans H, Luts H, Wouters J, Ghesquière P. Preschool impairments in auditory processing and speech perception uniquely predict future reading problems. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32(2):560-70.
8. Kraus N. Auditory pathway encoding and neural plasticity in children with learning problems. Audiol Neurootol. 2001;6(4):221-7.
9. Cherry RS, Kruger B. Selective auditory attention abilities of learning disabled and normal achieving children. J Learn Disabil. 1983;16(4):202-5.
10. Amitay S, Ahissar M, Nelken I. Auditory processing deficits in reading disabled adults. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2002;3(3):302-20.
11. Walker MM, Shinn JB, Cranford JL, Givens GD, Holbert D. Auditory temporal processing performance of young adults with reading disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(3):598-605.
12. Sharma M, Purdy SC, Kelly AS. Comorbidity of auditory processing, language, and reading disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52(3):706-22.
13. Farmer ME, Klein RM. The evidence for a temporal processing deficit linked to dyslexia: A review. Psychon Bull Rev. 1995;2(4):460-93.
14. Bellis TJ. Historical foundations and the nature of central auditory processing disorder. In: Musiek FE, Chermak GD, editors. Handbook of central auditory processing disorders: volume 2: comprehensive intervention. 1st ed. San Diego: Plural Pub Inc; 2007. p. 119-36.
15. Bellis TJ. Developing deficit-specific intervention plans for individuals with auditory processing disorders. Semin Hear. 2002;23(4):287-96.
16. Fu QJ, Galvin J, Wang X, Nogaki G. Moderate auditory training can improve speech performance of adult cochlear implant patients. Acoust Res Lett Online. 2005;6(3):106-11.
17. Stacey PC, Summerfield AQ. Effectiveness of computer-based auditory training in improving the perce¬ption of noise-vocoded speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;121(5 Pt1):2923-35.
18. Loeb DF, Gillam RB, Hoffman L, Brandel J, Marquis J. The effects of Fast ForWord Language on the phonemic awareness and reading skills of school-age children with language impairments and poor reading skills. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009;18(4):376-87.
19. Given BK, Wasserman JD, Chari SA, Beattie K, Eden GF. A randomized, controlled study of computer-based intervention in middle school struggling readers. Brain Lang. 2008;106(2):83-97.
20. Moossavi A, Mehrkian S, Lotfi Y, Faghihzadeh S, Sadjedi H. The effect of working memory training on auditory stream segregation in auditory processing disorders children. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal. 2015;13(1):22-7.
21. Malayeri S, Lotfi Y, Moossavi SA, Rostami R, Faghihzadeh S. Brainstem response to speech and non-speech stimuli in children with learning problems. Hear Res. 2014;313:75-82.
22. Delavar A. Theoretical and practical research in the humanities and social sciences. 2nd ed. Tehran: Roshd; 2015. Persian.
23. Strange AK, Zalewski TR, Waibel-Duncan MK. Exploring the usefulness of Fisher’s auditory problems checklist as a screening tool in relationship to the buffalo model diagnostic central auditory processing test battery. J Educ Audiol. 2009;15:44-52.
24. Shayanmehr S, Tahaei AA, Fatahi J, Jalaie S, Modarresi Y. Development, validity and reliability of Persian quick speech in noise test with steady noise. Aud Vest Res. 2015;24(4):234-44.
25. Guenette LA. How to administer the dichotic digit test. Hear J. 2006;59(2):50.
26. Nejati V, Alipour F, Jalilvand Karimi L, Esfandiari L. Persian version of the dichotic digit test for children: design and evaluation of the psychometric properties. Aud Vest Res. 2016;25(1):55-62.
27. Bakker DJ, Van der Vlugt H, Claushuis M. The reliability of dichotic ear asymmetry in normal children. Neuropsychologia. 1978;16(6):753-7.
28. Shafiei B, Tavakol S, Alinia L, Maracy MR, Sedaghati L, Foroughi R. Developing a screening inventory reading test (IRT) for the Isfahanian students of the first to fifth grade. Audiol. 2009;17(2):53-60. Persian.
29. Bellis TJ. Treatment of (central) auditory processing disorders. In: Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H, Roeser RJ, Galster JA, editors. Audiology: treatment. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc; 2008. p. 271-92.
30. Pokorni JL, Worthington CK, Jamison PJ. Phonological awareness intervention: comparison of Fast ForWord, Earobics, and LiPS. J Educ Res. 2004;97(3):147-58.
31. Miller CA, Uhring EA, Brown JJC, Kowalski EM, Roberts B, Schaefer BA. Case studies of auditory training for children with auditory processing diffi¬culties: a preliminary analysis. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord. 2005;32:93-107.
32. Thibodeau LM. Computer-based auditory training (CBAT) for (central) auditory processing disorder. In: Chermak G, Musiek F, editors. Handbook of central auditory processing disorder: comprehensive intervention, Vol II. 1st ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2007. p. 167-206.
33. Boothroyd A. Developments in speech audiometry. In: Bess FH, Gravel JS, editors. Foundations of pediatric audiology. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2006. p. 121-6.
34. Deppeler JM, Taranto AM, Bench J. Language and auditory processing changes following Fast ForWord. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology. 2004;26(2):94-109.
35. McArthur GM, Ellis D, Atkinson CM, Coltheart M. Auditory processing deficits in children with reading and language impairments: can they (and should they) be treated?. Cognition. 2008;107(3):946-77.
Published
2016-11-08
How to Cite
1.
Ghasemi M, Hassanzadeh S, Shokoohi-Yekta M, Afrooz G, Tahaei AA, Farzad V. The effectiveness of central auditory processing rehabilitation program on speech reception in noise and dichotic listening in dyslexic students. Aud Vestib Res. 25(3):183-193.
Section
Research Article(s)