Literature DB >> 19253811

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.

Sharon Cameron1, Harvey Dillon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Listening in Spatialized Noise--Sentences test (LISN-S) is a revised version of the Listening in Spatialized Noise (Continuous Discourse) test (LISN; Cameron et al, 2006a). The software produces a three-dimensional auditory environment under headphones and was developed to assess auditory stream segregation skills in children. A simple repetition response protocol is utilized to determine speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for sentences presented from 0 degree azimuth in competing speech. The competing speech is manipulated with respect to its location in auditory space (0 degree vs. + and -90 degrees azimuth) and the vocal quality of the speaker(s) (same as, or different to, the speaker of the target stimulus). Performance is measured as two SRT and three advantage measures. The advantage measures represent the benefit in dB gained when either talker, spatial, or both talker and spatial cues combined are incorporated in the maskers.
PURPOSE: To document LISN-S performance in a group of nine children with suspected (central) auditory processing disorder ([C]APD), who presented with difficulties hearing in the classroom in the absence of any routine audiological or language, learning or attention deficits to explain such a difficulty (SusCAPD group). The study also aimed to research the effect of higher-order deficits on LISN-S performance in a group of 11 children with a range of documented learning or attention disorders (LD Group). Correlation between performance on the LISN-S and a traditional (C)APD test battery was also compared. RESEARCH
DESIGN: In a descriptive design, SusCAPD and LD group performance on the LISN-S was compared to published normative data from 70 age-matched controls. A correlational design was used to compare performance on the various tests in the traditional (C)APD battery to the SRT and advantage measures of the LISN-S.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the SusCAPD, LD, or control groups on the conditions of the LISN-S where both the target and maskers emanated from 0 degree azimuth (low-cue SRT, p = 0.978; talker advantage, p = 0.307). However, there were significant differences between groups on the performance measures where the maskers were separated from the target by + and -90 degrees. Post hoc tests revealed that there were no significant differences between the LD group and controls on any of these measures. There were, however, significant differences between the SusCAPD group and the controls on all the conditions where the maskers were spatially separated from the target (high-cue SRT, p = 0.001; spatial advantage, p < 0.0001; total advantage, p < 0.0001). The LISN-S did not correlate significantly with any test in the traditional test battery, nor were the nonspatial and spatial performance measures of the LISN-S correlated.
CONCLUSIONS: The study supports the hypothesis that a high proportion of children with suspected (C)APD have a deficit in the mechanisms that normally use the spatial distribution of sources to suppress unwanted signals. The LISN-S is a potentially valuable assessment tool for assessing auditory stream segregation deficits, and is sensitive in differentiating various forms of auditory streaming.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19253811     DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.19.5.2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  27 in total

Review 1.  Problems hearing in noise in older adults: a review of spatial processing disorder.

Authors:  Helen Glyde; Louise Hickson; Sharon Cameron; Harvey Dillon
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2011-11-08

2.  [Auditory processing and perception disorders - a definition : Guidelines of the German Society of Phoniatrics and Pedaudiology].

Authors:  M Ptok; A am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen; A Nickisch
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Auditory processing disorders with and without central auditory discrimination deficits.

Authors:  Alexandra Annemarie Ludwig; Michael Fuchs; Eberhard Kruse; Brigitte Uhlig; Sonja Annette Kotz; Rudolf Rübsamen
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06

4.  Auditory pathway changes mirror overall disease progress in individuals with Friedreich ataxia.

Authors:  Gary Rance; Louise A Corben; Martin B Delatycki
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2012-09-30       Impact factor: 4.849

5.  Results from a National Central Auditory Processing Disorder Service: A Real-World Assessment of Diagnostic Practices and Remediation for Central Auditory Processing Disorder.

Authors:  Sharon Cameron; Helen Glyde; Harvey Dillon; Alison King; Karin Gillies
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2015-11

6.  Tonal Language Speakers Are Better Able to Segregate Competing Speech According to Talker Sex Differences.

Authors:  Juan Zhang; Xing Wang; Ning-Yu Wang; Xin Fu; Tian Gan; John J Galvin; Shelby Willis; Kevin Xu; Mathew Thomas; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Auditory Lateralization Training Effects on Binaural Interaction Component of Middle Latency Response in Children Suspected to Central Auditory Processing Disorder.

Authors:  Yones Lotfi; Abdollah Moosavi; Farzaneh Zamiri Abdollahi; Enayatollah Bakhshi
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-02-02

8.  The Lililwan Project: study protocol for a population-based active case ascertainment study of the prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) in remote Australian Aboriginal communities.

Authors:  James P Fitzpatrick; Elizabeth J Elliott; Jane Latimer; Maureen Carter; June Oscar; Manuela Ferreira; Heather Carmichael Olson; Barbara Lucas; Robyn Doney; Claire Salter; Elizabeth Peadon; Genevieve Hawkes; Marmingee Hand
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-05-03       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Peripheral Auditory Involvement in Childhood Listening Difficulty.

Authors:  Lisa L Hunter; Chelsea M Blankenship; Li Lin; Nicholette T Sloat; Audrey Perdew; Hannah Stewart; David R Moore
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.562

Review 10.  Efficacy of the LiSN & Learn auditory training software: randomized blinded controlled study.

Authors:  Sharon Cameron; Helen Glyde; Harvey Dillon
Journal:  Audiol Res       Date:  2012-09-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.