China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Central Auditory Processing: From Diagnosis to Rehabilitation
Published in Stavros Hatzopoulos, Andrea Ciorba, Mark Krumm, Advances in Audiology and Hearing Science, 2020
Maria Isabel Ramos do Amaral, Leticia Reis Borges, Maria Francisca Colella-Santos
Dichotic listening tests are the most common and frequently included in a battery of behavioral assessment for the diagnosis of CAPD and the task involved consist in a simultaneous presentation of different acoustic stimuli to each of the two ears. Binaural integration is related to the task to respond to the stimulus heard in both ears and binaural separation is the task related to respond/repeat the stimulus heard in one specific ear and ignore the other one. Therefore, in addition to the mechanisms of integration binaural integration and binaural separation, dichotic listening involves divided and selective auditory attention. There is also the influence of other attentional factors, perceptual style and hemispheric linguistic dominance, previous experience, and working memory (Bryden, 1983).
The effects of auditory object identification and localization (AOIL) training on noise acceptance and loudness discomfort in persons with normal hearing
Published in Speech, Language and Hearing, 2019
K. L. Bees, D. Guan, N. Alsarrage, G. D. Searchfield
AOIL training has been used with participants with tinnitus and reduced the amount of masking required to attenuate the perception of tinnitus (Searchfield et al., 2007). It was proposed that the mechanism underlying this effect was a change in auditory scene analysis and selective auditory attention with auditory training (Searchfield et al., 2007). Changes in auditory scene analysis and auditory attention may also underlie the effect of AOIL training seen on ANLs. Figure-ground separation in auditory scene analysis shares some similarities with the ANL. The ANL is measured by asking the participant to report the level of noise they are willing to accept while listening to a passage clearly and comfortably – this involves directing attention to the passage of interest (figure) and separating it from the background noise (ground) (Teki, Chait, Kumar, von Kriegstein, & Griffiths, 2011). Brännström, Zunic, Borovac, and Ibertsson (2012) reported that working memory capacity has a strong association with ANLs and BNLs, a finding in line with the proposed mechanism of effect on selective auditory attention that AOIL training has on ANL (Brännström et al., 2012). Hence, a reduction in ANL may be due to an improvement in figure-ground separation and selective auditory attention after AOIL training.
Comparative Study of the ability of selective attention and speech perception in noise between 6 to 9 year old normal and learning disabled children
Published in Hearing, Balance and Communication, 2019
Farnoush Jarollahi, Saeid Aarabi, Shohre Jalaei
Monaural selective auditory attention test [mSAAT] evaluates monaural speech recognition with low redundancy. The principle of the mSAAT test is based on the hypothesis that weakness/deficits in selective auditory attention skills may lead to the learning disability. This test assess monaural speech recognition in the presence of competing speech signal. Therefore selective auditory attention ability and speech perception in noise performance are simultaneously evaluated. This test was first used by Cherry in order to identify children with LD in 1980 [14, 15].
Assessing speech perception in Swedish school-aged children: preliminary data on the Listen–Say test
Published in Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 2018
Cecilia Nakeva von Mentzer, Martina Sundström, Karin Enqvist, Mathias Hällgren
In contrast to Vance and Martindale’s findings (3), there was a significant overall effect of speech background in the present study. It is important to address the differences in the noise maskers between their study and ours. They used a 20-talker babble noise, which has more detrimental peripheral effects on speech perception than a babble noise with fewer talkers has. In a 20-talker babble condition, feature confusion due to energetic masking is expected since very few gaps between words are detectable. For the 4T-speech masker in the Listen-Say test however, both peripheral and central effects, i.e. energetic and informational masking, are present since the different words are separable to a certain extent. As a consequence, larger effects on speech perception are expected. This is in line with the findings of Leibold and Buss (48). They found that the two-talker (2T) masker produced comparably more central processes and more inconsistent feature confusion as well as more individual variation than their speech-shaped noise masker did. Moreover, the children (even the oldest age group, 11–13 years) had overall weaker results than adults in identifying features of sound in the 2T babble condition. Leibold and Buss (48) suggested that extensive experience of speech is needed before children fully learn important features of sound across different talkers and listening environments. A cognitive control factor, such as selective auditory attention, which refers to the ability to attend to or inhibit auditory information, is possibly another important variable that comes into play when listening in noise. In the study by Jones et al. (24) where children 4–11 years of age and adults were compared regarding tone-in-noise detection ability in unpredictable noise, selective auditory attention was the single factor that explained better ability to ignore noise similar in frequency to the target.