R Filippini1, D M Befi-Lopes, E Schochat. 1. Department of Physiotherapy, Speech-Language and Hearing Sciences and Occupational Therapy, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. refilippini.rf@gmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study verified the efficacy of a formal auditory training (AT) program in children with hearing and language disorders using the auditory brainstem response to complex sounds (c-ABR) with and without background noise. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty children (7-13 years) were distributed into four groups: typical development (TD: n = 7), auditory processing disorder (APD: n = 9) and specific language disorder (SLIa: n = 6, and SLIb: n = 8). All children underwent behavioral assessment of auditory processing and c-ABR with and without background noise. The APD and SLIa groups underwent 8 weeks of formal AT, but all children were reevaluated 12 weeks after the initial assessment. RESULTS: The TD group presented better behavioral performance than the other groups. For c-ABR in silence, no significant differences were observed among groups or assessments, except regarding VA complex measures, which were altered in the APD group. For c-ABR with background noise, however, the APD, SLIa and SLIb groups presented delayed latencies. Groups that underwent formal AT improved behavioral performance and decreased latencies to c-ABR in background noise at final assessment. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that efficacy of formal AT can be demonstrated by c-ABR with background noise.
OBJECTIVES: This study verified the efficacy of a formal auditory training (AT) program in children with hearing and language disorders using the auditory brainstem response to complex sounds (c-ABR) with and without background noise. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty children (7-13 years) were distributed into four groups: typical development (TD: n = 7), auditory processing disorder (APD: n = 9) and specific language disorder (SLIa: n = 6, and SLIb: n = 8). All children underwent behavioral assessment of auditory processing and c-ABR with and without background noise. The APD and SLIa groups underwent 8 weeks of formal AT, but all children were reevaluated 12 weeks after the initial assessment. RESULTS: The TD group presented better behavioral performance than the other groups. For c-ABR in silence, no significant differences were observed among groups or assessments, except regarding VA complex measures, which were altered in the APD group. For c-ABR with background noise, however, the APD, SLIa and SLIb groups presented delayed latencies. Groups that underwent formal AT improved behavioral performance and decreased latencies to c-ABR in background noise at final assessment. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that efficacy of formal AT can be demonstrated by c-ABR with background noise.