Review Article

Spatial auditory processing in children with central auditory processing disorder


Background and Aim: Spatial hearing is one of the most important functions of binaural hearing processing that is based on detection of fine interaural time and interaural intensity difference. Spatial hearing is beyond auditory localization and lateralization. It helps auditory scene analysis and target stream segregation from other simultaneous sound sources. This function is important in speech perception in presence of competing messages. The aim of the present paper was reviewing spatial hearing, plasticity of binaural hearing in auditory system and spatial hearing disorder in children with central auditory processing disorder ((C)APD).
Recent Findings: Recent studies show that spatial hearing disorder is one of the important problems in relatively high proportion of children with (C)APD. It is proposed that spatial processing disorder can cause speech perception difficulty in noise which is the main complaint of children with (C)APD. Spatial hearing rehabilitation through sound localization and lateralization training can be effective in improvement of speech perception in noise.
Conclusion: In children suspected to (C)APD, spatial hearing evaluation is vital. Spatial hearing can be evaluated by using sound localization and lateralization tests. If spatial hearing disorder is detected, special rehabilitation is necessary to address this central processing problem. This rehabilitation has a potential to improve speech perception in noise.

1. Emanuel DC. The auditory processing battery: survey of common practices. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002;13(2):93-117.
2. Banai K, Kraus N. Neurobiology of (central) auditory processing disorder and language-based learning disability. In: Musiek FE, Chermak GD, editors. Handbook of (central) auditory processing disorders: volume 1: auditory neuroscience and diagnosis. 1st ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing Inc; 2006. p. 89-116.
3. Yalçinkaya F, Keith R. Understanding auditory processing disorders. Turk J Pediatr. 2008;50(2):101-5.
4. Millward KE, Hall RL, Ferguson MA, Moore DR. Training speech-in-noise perception in mainstream school children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;75(11):1408-17.
5. Bamiou DE, Campbell N, Sirimanna T. Management of auditory processing disorders. Audiol Med. 2006;4(1):46-56.
6. Iliadou V, Sidiras C, Nimatoudis I. Auditory processing disorder: auditory perception beyond classical audiological testing. Aristotle University Medical Journal. 2015;42(1):17-22.
7. Chermak GD, Hall JW 3rd, Musiek FE. Differential diagnosis and management of central auditory processing disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;10(6):289-303.
8. Domitz DM, Schow RL. A new CAPD battery--multiple auditory processing assessment: factor analysis and comparisons with SCAN. Am J Audiol. 2000;9(2):101-11.
9. Schow RL, Seikel A, Brockett JE, Whitaker MM. Multiple auditory processing assessment (MAPA) Test Manual, Version 1.0. St. Louis: AUDITEC, 2007.
10. Ingham NJ, McAlpine D. GABAergic inhibition controls neural gain in inferior colliculus neurons sensitive to interaural time differences. J Neurosci. 2005;25(26):6187-98.
11. Yamada K, Kaga K, Uno A, Shindo M. Sound lateralization in patients with lesions including the auditory cortex: comparison of interaural time difference (ITD) discrimination and interaural intensity difference (IID) discrimination. Hear Res. 1996;101(1-2):173-80.
12. Lee CC. Thalamic and cortical pathways supporting auditory processing. Brain and language. Brain Lang. 2013;126(1):22-8.
13. Baldwin CL. Auditory cognition and human performance: research and applications. 1st ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2012.
14. Larson E, Lee AK. Switching auditory attention using spatial and non-spatial features recruits different cortical networks. Neuroimage. 2014;84:681-7.
15. Kacelnik O, Nodal FR, Parsons CH, King AJ. Training-induced plasticity of auditory localization in adult mammals. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(4):e71.
16. Wright BA, Zhang Y. A review of learning with normal and altered sound-localization cues in human adults. Int J Audiol. 2006;45 Suppl 1:S92-8.
17. Letowski T, Letowski S. Localization error: accuracy and precision of auditory localization. In: Strumillo P, editor. Advances in sound localization. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2011. p. 55-78.
18. Perrott DR. Role of signal onset in sound localization. J Acoust Soc Am. 1969;45(2):436-45.
19. Carlile S, Leong P, Hyams S. The nature and distribution of errors in sound localization by human listeners. Hear Res. 1997;114(1-2):179-96.
20. Kuhn GF. Physical acoustics and measurements pertaining to directional hearing. In: Yost WA, Gourevitch G, editors. Directional hearing. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 1987. p. 3-25.
21. Langendijk EH, Kistler DJ, Wightman FL. Sound localization in the presence of one or two distracters. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109(5 Pt 1):2123-34.
22. Moore JM, Tollin DJ, Yin TC. Can measures of sound localization acuity be related to the precision of absolute location estimates? Hear Res. 2008;238(1-2):94-109.
23. May BJ. Role of the dorsal cochlear nucleus in the sound localization behavior of cats. Hear Res. 2000;148(1-2):74-87.
24. Spitzer MW, Bala AD, Takahashi TT. Auditory spatial discrimination by barn owls in simulated echoic conditions. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113(3):1631-45.
25. Spitzer MW, Takahashi TT. Sound localization by barn owls in a simulated echoic environment. J Neurophysiol. 2006;95(6):3571-84.
26. Hofman PM, Van Riswick JG, Van Opstal AJ. Relearning sound localization with new ears. Nature Nat Neurosci. 1998;1(5):417-21.
27. Wright BA, Fitzgerald MB. Different patterns of human discrimination learning for two interaural cues to sound-source location. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(21):12307-12.
28. Kumpik DP, Kacelnik O, King AJ. Adaptive reweighting of auditory localization cues in response to chronic unilateral earplugging in humans. J Neurosci. 2010;30(14):4883-94.
29. Irving S, Moore DR. Training sound localization in normal hearing listeners with and without a unilateral ear plug. Hear Res. 2011;280(1-2):100-8.
30. Firszt JB, Reeder RM, Dwyer NY, Burton H, Holden LK. Localization training results in individuals with unilateral severe to profound hearing loss. Hear Res. 2015;319:48-55.
31. Moore DR. Auditory development and the role of experience. Br Med Bull. 2002;63(1):171-81.
32. Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Kwong B, Don M. Maturation of human central auditory system activity: evidence from multi-channel evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2000;111(2):220-36.
33. Cranford JL, Morgan M, Scudder R, Moore C. Tracking of "moving" fused auditory images by children. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36(2):424-30.
34. Oosthuizen I, Swanepoel de W, van Dijk C. Speech-perception-in-noise and bilateral spatial abilities in adults with delayed sequential cochlear implant. S Afr J Commun Disord. 2012;59:45-52.
35. Tyler RS, Witt SA, Dunn CC, Wang W. Initial development of a spatially separated speech-in-noise and localization training program. J Am Acad Audiol. 2010;21(6):390-403.
36. Zhang Y, Wright BA. Similar patterns of learning and performance variability for human discrimination of interaural time differences at high and low frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;121(4):2207-16.
37. Cameron S, Dillon H. The listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S): comparison to the prototype LISN and results from children with either a suspected (central) auditory processing disorder or a confirmed language disorder. J Am Acad Audiol. 2008;19(5):377-91.
38. Delb W, Strauss DJ, Hohenberg G, Plinkert PK. 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. 2003;42(7):401-12.
39. Cameron S, Glyde H, Dillon H. Efficacy of the LiSN & Learn auditory training software: randomized blinded controlled study. Audiol Res. 2012;2(1):e15.
40. Ahveninen J, Kopčo N, Jääskeläinen IP. Psychophysics and neuronal bases of sound localization in humans. Hear Res. 2014;307:86-97.
41. Brungart DS, Simpson BD. The effects of spatial separation in distance on the informational and energetic masking of a nearby speech signal. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112(2):664-76.
42. Shinn-Cunningham B. Learning reverberation: Considerations for spatial auditory displays. Paper presented at: ICAD 2000. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display; 2000 April 2-5; Atlanta, GA.
43. Best V, Ozmeral EJ, Kopco N, Shinn-Cunningham BG. Object continuity enhances selective auditory attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(35):13174-8.
44. Brungart DS, Simpson BD. Cocktail party listening in a dynamic multitalker environment. Percept Psychophys. 2007;69(1):79-91.
45. Spille C, Dietz M, Hohmann V, Meyer BT. Using bina¬rual processing for automatic speech recognition in multi-talker scenes. Paper presented at: IEEE 2013. International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. Vancouver Convention & Exhibition Center; 2013; Vancouver BC, Canada.
46. Ericson MA. Brungart DS, Simpson BD. Factors that influence intelligibility in multitalker speech displays. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology. 2004;14(3):313-34.
IssueVol 26 No 2 (2017) QRcode
SectionReview Article(s)
Central auditory processing spatial hearing speech perception in noise sound localization pediatrics

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Moossavi A, Zamiri Abdollahi F, Lotfi Y. Spatial auditory processing in children with central auditory processing disorder. Aud Vestib Res. 26(2):56-63.