Time-compressed speech test in adults with and without central auditory processing disorders

Purpose To identify the behavioral tests used to assess auditory processing throughout adulthood, focusing on the characteristics of the target population as an interest group. Research strategies PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scielo, databases were searched with descriptors: “auditory perception” or “auditory perception disorders” or “auditory processing” or “central auditory processing” or “auditory processing disorders” or “central auditory processing disorders” with adults OR aging. Selection criteria Studies with humans included, the adult population from 18 to 64 years old, who performed at least one behavioral test to assess auditory processing in the absence of hearing loss. Data analysis Data extraction was performed independently, using a protocol developed by the authors that included different topics, mainly the behavioral auditory tests performed and the results found. Results Of the 867 records identified, 24 contained the information needed to answer the survey questions. Conclusion Almost all studies were conducted verify performance in one or two auditory processing tests. The target target population was heterogeneous, with the most frequent persons with diabetes, stuttering, auditory processing disorder, and noise exposure. There is little information regarding benchmarks for testing in the respective age groups.

Section: Behavioral Investigation Of Auditory Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral assessment of auditory processing in adulthood: population of interest and tests - a systematic review

Lunardelo

Fukuda

Stefanelli

et al. 2023

“…O principal enfoque dos estudos com testes comportamentais do PAC em adultos jovens e de meia idade comparam os mecanismos auditivos em função de uma condição ou patologia específica (e.g. diabetes mellitus, zumbido, exposição a ruído, esclerose múltipla, gagueira, entre outros) usualmente com melhor desempenho para a população hígida (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35) . O enfoque do aumento da idade é menos explorado, principalmente em adultos sem perda auditiva.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Avaliação comportamental do processamento auditivo na idade adulta: população de interesse e testes - uma revisão sistemática

Lunardelo

Fukuda

Stefanelli

et al. 2023

RESUMO Objetivo Identificar os testes comportamentais utilizados para a avaliação do processamento auditivo ao longo da vida adulta, com enfoque nas características da população alvo enquanto grupo de interesse. Estratégia de pesquisa As bases de dados consultadas foram o PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science e Scielo, a partir dos descritores: “auditory perception” or “auditory perception disorders” or “auditory processing” or “central auditory processing” or “auditory processing disorders” or “central auditory processing disorders” com adults OR aging. Critérios de seleção Incluiu-se estudos com humanos, que abordaram a população adulta de 18 a 64 anos, que realizaram pelo menos um teste comportamental para avaliação do processamento auditivo, na ausência de perda auditiva. Análise dos dados Realizou-se a extração de dados de forma independente, a partir de um protocolo desenvolvido pelos autores incluindo diferentes tópicos, principalmente os testes auditivos comportamentais realizados e os resultados encontrados. Resultados Dos 867 registros identificados, 24 foram selecionados como contendo as informações necessárias para responder às perguntas de pesquisa. Conclusão Quase a totalidade dos estudos foi conduzida com objetivo de verificar o desempenho em um ou dois testes de processamento auditivo; a população alvo foi heterogênea, as mais frequentes foram diabetes, gagueira, transtorno do processamento auditivo e exposição ao ruído. Há poucas informações sobre os padrões de referência para os testes na respectiva faixa etária.

“…In the clinical routine, there is an increase in adult individuals who seek audiological assessments for presenting low academic or professional performance, reporting complaints such as difficulties hearing, paying attention, and memorizing, but especially understanding speech, primarily in unfavorable situations (with competing verbal messages) However, a large share of such individuals presents auditory thresholds within normality standards, which, in turn, renders the performance of the Central Auditory Processing (CAP) assessment fundamental to investigate the origin of such complaints (3) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dichotic Sentences Test Performance of Adults with communication complaints

Ferreira

Schochat

Freire³

et al. 2023

Purpose To analyze the performance of normal-hearing adults with communication complaints in the Dichotic Sentences Test. Methods We selected from the database 15 normal-hearing participants with normal results in the Digits Dichotic Test, aged between 19 and 44 years, right-handed, who reported communicative complaints. The Dichotic Sentences Test was applied using two protocols consisting of four different combinations of lists called sequences 1 and 2, in the following order: training, divided attention step, right and left directed attention steps. Results In the first application sequence, the average performance in the divided attention step was 84.7% for the right ear and 60.67% for the left, with statistical difference between ears. The asymmetry between ears varied from -50% to 60%. In the directed attention step, the average performance was 99.33% for the right ear and 98% for the left, with no statistical difference. In the second application sequence, there was a tendency for better results, more pronounced for the left ear, with no statistical significance, with the performance variation and asymmetry between ears remaining high. In the comparison between the sequences, in the divided attention step, it was found that, for the right ear, 40% of the individuals did not vary, 33% performed worse, and 26.7% performed better; for the left ear, 6.6% did not vary, 20% performed worse, and 73.33% performed better. There was result stability in the directed attention step. Conclusion The normal-hearing adults with communication complaints presented a heterogeneous profile, especially in the divided attention step, with a marked difference between ears and response variability.