2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.12.032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A case study of the changes in the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response associated with auditory training in children with auditory processing disorders

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
17
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
1
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Performance of the individuals in the pre-and post-auditory training assessments for the behaviorally assessed skills showed that the auditory training proposed in this study was effective (Table 3), that is, training using the PER software was able to stimulate auditory processing skills. These data corroborate the findings of other studies that reported improvement of hearing abilities in children after auditory training using software (23,24).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Performance of the individuals in the pre-and post-auditory training assessments for the behaviorally assessed skills showed that the auditory training proposed in this study was effective (Table 3), that is, training using the PER software was able to stimulate auditory processing skills. These data corroborate the findings of other studies that reported improvement of hearing abilities in children after auditory training using software (23,24).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…In the research by Krishnamurti et al (24) , patients with APDs were submitted to eight weeks of auditory training, with 50 min sessions, five times a week, using the Fast ForWord software, which differs from this study, in which children with APD and poor school performance underwent 12 weeks of auditory training, with 50 min sessions, once a week, using the PER software. The results were similar, that is, both studies presented statistically significant differences in the post-intervention auditory processing behavioral assessment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…As noted earlier, FFW is a computer-based AT paradigm that targets temporal processing and auditory discrimination skills in a speech-language context. 61 The two pediatric cases (7 to 8 years old) presented normal peripheral hearing sensitivity and showed difficulties on the researchers' central auditory test battery. The battery consisted of one highly sensitive and specific nonverbal measure of CAPD 4 (i.e., Frequency Patterns 11 ), as well as several auditory language-based measures that more generally involve central auditory aspects as well (i.e., SCAN-C, 62 Phonemic Synthesis, 63 and TAPS-R 64 ).…”
Section: Sharma Et Al 60mentioning
confidence: 93%
“…More research is needed, however, before the use of P3AERPs in a standard APD battery can be advocated for school-age children. The utility of other physiological measures of brainstem processing has already been demonstrated in investigating auditory training (plasticity) effects [66,67]. More research on neural correlates of cortical processing by measures such as P3AERPs will provide insight into the listening skills of school-age children.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%