PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(07): 568-586
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16074
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Impact of Personal Frequency Modulation Systems on Behavioral and Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential Measures of Auditory Processing and Classroom Listening in School-Aged Children with Auditory Processing Disorder

Jennifer L. Smart
*   Department of Audiology, Speech-Language Pathology and Deaf Studies, Towson University, Towson, MD
,
Suzanne C. Purdy
†   Speech Science, Department of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
,
Andrea S. Kelly
†   Speech Science, Department of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
29. Mai 2020 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Personal frequency modulation (FM) systems are often recommended for children diagnosed with auditory processing disorder (APD) to improve their listening environment in the classroom. Further evidence is required to support the continuation of this recommendation.

Purpose:

To determine whether personal FM systems enhance auditory processing abilities and classroom listening in school-aged children with APD.

Research Design:

Two baseline assessments separated by eight weeks were undertaken before a 20-week trial of bilateral personal FM in the classroom. The third assessment was completed immediately after the FM trial. A range of behavioral measures and speech-evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) in quiet and in noise were used to assess auditory processing and FM outcomes. Perceived listening ability was assessed using the Listening Inventory for Education–United Kingdom version (LIFE-UK) questionnaire student and teacher versions, and a modified version of the LIFE-UK questionnaire for parents.

Study Sample:

Twenty-eight children aged 7–12 years were included in this intervention study. Of the 28 children, there were 22 males and six females.

Data Collection and Analysis:

APD Tests scores and CAEP peak latencies and amplitudes were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance to determine whether results changed over the two baseline assessments and after the FM trial. The LIFE-UK was administered immediately before and after the FM trial. Student responses were analyzed using paired t-tests. Results are described for the (different) pre- and post-trial teacher versions of the LIFE-UK.

Results:

Speech in spatial noise (SSN) scores improved by 13% on average when participants wore the FM system in the laboratory. Noise resulted in increased P1 and N2 latencies and reduced N2 amplitudes. The impact of noise on CAEP latencies and amplitudes was significantly reduced when participants wore the FM. Participants’ LIFE-UK responses indicated significant improvements in their perceived listening after the FM trial. Most teachers (74%) reported the trial as successful, based on LIFE-UK ratings. Teachers’ and parents’ questionnaire ratings indicated good agreement regarding the outcomes of the FM trial. There was no change in compressed and reverberated words, masking level difference, and sustained attention scores across visits. Gaps in noise, dichotic digits test, and SSN (hard words) showed practice effects. Frequency pattern test and SSN easy word scores did not change between baseline visits, and improved significantly after the FM trial. CAEP N2 latencies and amplitudes changed significantly across visits; changes occurred across the baseline and the FM trial period.

Conclusions:

Personal FM systems produce immediate speech perception benefits and enhancement of speech-evoked cortical responses in noise in the laboratory. The 20-week FM trial produced significant improvements in behavioral measures of auditory processing and participants’ perceptions of their listening skills. Teacher and parent questionnaires also indicated positive outcomes.

Key Words

auditory plasticity - auditory processing disorder - classroom listening - cortical auditory evoked potential - FM - intervention

Portions of this research study were presented orally at Audiology Now! The American Academy of Audiology, Charlotte, NC, April 2–5, 2008, and the XXI Biennial Symposium of the International Evoked Response Audiometry Study Group, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 8–11, 2009.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • American Academy of Audiology (AAA). (2008) Clinical Practice Guidelines: remote microphone hearing assistance technologies for children and youth from birth to 21 years.
  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) 2005 (Central) auditory processing disorders—the role of the audiologist [Position Statement]. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/policy/PS2005-00114.htm
  • Amitay S, Irwin A, Moore DR. 2006; Discrimination learning induced by training with identical stimuli. Nat Neurosci 9 (11) 1446-1448
    Google Scholar
  • Anderson KL, Goldstein H. 2004; Speech perception benefits of FM and infrared devices to children with hearing aids in a typical classroom. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 35 (02) 169-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Arnold P, Canning D. 1999; Does classroom amplification aid comprehension?. Br J Audiol 33 (03) 171-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bamiou DE, Musiek FE, Luxon LM. 2001; Aetiology and clinical presentations of auditory processing disorders—a review. Arch Dis Child 85 (05) 361-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bellis TJ. 2003. Assessment and Management of Central Auditory Processing Disorders in the Educational Setting: From Science to Practice. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson/Delmar Learning;
    Google Scholar
  • Bellis TJ, Nicol T, Kraus N. 2000; Aging affects hemispheric asymmetry in the neural representation of speech sounds. J Neurosci 20 (02) 791-797
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Beynon AJ, Snik AFM, van den Broek P. 2002; Evaluation of cochlear implant benefit with auditory cortical evoked potentials. Int J Audiol 41 (07) 429-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bishop DVM, McArthur GM. 2004; Immature cortical responses to auditory stimuli in specific language impairment: evidence from ERPs to rapid tone sequences. Dev Sci 7 (04) F11-F18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Chermak GD, Musiek FE. 1992; Managing central auditory processing disorders in children and youth. Am J Audiol 1 (03) 61-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Chermak GD, Silva ME, Nye J, Hasbrouck J, Musiek FE. 2007; An update on professional education and clinical practices in central auditory processing. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (05) 428-452, quiz 455
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Chermak GD, Tucker E, Seikel JA. 2002; Behavioral characteristics of auditory processing disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: predominantly inattentive type. J Am Acad Audiol 13 (06) 332-338
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cone-Wesson B, Wunderlich J. 2003; Auditory evoked potentials from the cortex: audiology applications. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 11 (05) 372-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cunningham J, Nicol T, Zecker SG, Bradlow A, Kraus N. 2001; Neurobiologic responses to speech in noise in children with learning problems: deficits and strategies for improvement. Clin Neurophysiol 112 (05) 758-767
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dockrell JE, Shield B. 2012; The impact of sound-field systems on learning and attention in elementary school classrooms. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55 (04) 1163-1176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Eisenberg LS, Martinez AS, Holowecky SR, Pogorelsky S. 2002; Recognition of lexically controlled words and sentences by children with normal hearing and children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 23 (05) 450-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Emanuel DC. 2002; The auditory processing battery: survey of common practices. J Am Acad Audiol 13 (02) 93-117 , quiz 118–119
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Friederichs E, Friederichs P. 2005; Electrophysiologic and psycho-acoustic findings following one-year application of a personal ear-level FM device in children with attention deficit and suspected central auditory processing disorder. J Educ Audiol 12: 31-36
    Google Scholar
  • Gatehouse S. 1992; The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 92 (03) 1258-1268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gomes H, Dunn M, Ritter W, Kurtzberg D, Brattson A, Kreuzer JA, Vaughan Jr HG. 2001; Spatiotemporal maturation of the central and lateral N1 components to tones. Brain Res Dev Brain Res 129 (02) 147-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon KA, Tanaka S, Papsin BC. 2005; Atypical cortical responses underlie poor speech perception in children using cochlear implants. Neuroreport 16 (18) 2041-2045
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Halliday LF, Taylor JL, Edmondson-Jones AM, Moore DR. 2008; Frequency discrimination learning in children. J Acoust Soc Am 123 (06) 4393-4402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hawkins DB. 1984; Comparisons of speech recognition in noise by mildly-to-moderately hearing-impaired children using hearing aids and FM systems. J Speech Hear Disord 49 (04) 409-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Heeney M. 2006 Classroom sound field amplification, listening and learning. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
    Google Scholar
  • Iglehart F. 2004; Speech perception by students with cochlear implants using sound-field systems in classrooms. Am J Audiol 13 (01) 62-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Imada T, Watanabe M, Mashiko T, Kawakatsu M, Kotani M. 1997; The silent period between sounds has a stronger effect than the interstimulus interval on auditory evoked magnetic fields. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 102 (01) 37-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Johnston KN, John AB, Kreisman NV, Hall 3rd JW, Crandell CC. 2009; Multiple benefits of personal FM system use by children with auditory processing disorder (APD). Int J Audiol 48 (06) 371-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Keith WJ, Purdy SC. 2014; Assistive and therapeutic effects of amplification for auditory processing disorder. Semin Hear 35 (01) 27-37
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • Kelly A. 2007; Normative data for behavioural tessts of auditory processing for New Zealand school children aged 7 to 12 years. Aust N Z J Audiol 29: 60-64
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Osberger MJ. 1995; Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 16 (05) 470-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kraus N, McGee T, Micco A, Sharma A, Carrell T, Nicol T. 1993; Mismatch negativity in school-age children to speech stimuli that are just perceptibly different. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 88 (02) 123-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Krishnamurti S. 2007. Monaural low-redundancy speech tests. In: Musiek FE, Chermak GD. Handbook of (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 193-205
    Google Scholar
  • Larsen JB, Blair JC. 2008; The effect of classroom amplification on the signal-to-noise ratio in classrooms while class is in session. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 39 (04) 451-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Madelaine A, Wheldall K. 2002; Further progress towards a standardised curriculum-based measure of reading: calibrating a new passage reading test against the New South Wales basic skills test. Educ Psychol 22: 461-471
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Massie R, Dillon H. 2006; a The impact of sound-field amplification in mainstream cross cultural classrooms: part 1 educational outcomes. Aust J Educ 50: 62-77
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Massie R, Dillon H. 2006; b The impact of sound-field amplification in mainstream cross cultural classrooms: part 2 teacher and child opinions. Aust J Educ 50: 78-94
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Mendel LL, Roberts RA, Walton JH. 2003; Speech perception benefits from sound field FM amplification. Am J Audiol 12 (02) 114-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moore DR, Amitay S. 2007; Auditory training: rules and applications. Semin Hear 28: 99-110
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • Morgan A. 2007. Measuring Perceptions of Classroom Listening Behavior: Is The LIFE-UK Questionnaire a Reliable and Valid tool for Evaluating New Zealand Children with Suspected Classroom Listening Problems? Unpublished Master of Speech Language Therapy Practice Research Project. Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland;
    Google Scholar
  • Munro KJ. 2008; Reorganization of the adult auditory system: perceptual and physiological evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. Trends Amplif 12 (03) 254-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nittrouer S, Boothroyd A. 1990; Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. J Acoust Soc Am 87 (06) 2705-2715
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Parthasarthy M, Bartlett E. 2012; Two-channel recording of auditory-evoked potentials to detect age-related deficits in temporal processing. Hear Res 289: 52-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Phonak Hearing Systems. (n.d.). Product Information EduLink S. Switzerland: Author.
  • Pinheiro M. 1976; Auditory pattern perception in patients with right and left hemisphere lesions. Ohio J Speech Hear 12: 9-20
    Google Scholar
  • Pinheiro M. 1977. Tests of central auditory function in children with learning disabilities. In: Keith RW. , ed. Central Auditory dysfunction. New York, NY: Grune and Stratton; 223-256
    Google Scholar
  • Pinheiro ML, Ptacek PH. 1971; Reversals in the perception of noise and tone patterns. J Acoust Soc Am 49 (06) 1778-1783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Kwong B, Don M. 2000; Maturation of human central auditory system activity: evidence from multi-channel evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 111 (02) 220-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ptok M, Buller N, Schwemmle C, Bergmann C, Lüerssen K. 2006; Auditory processing disorder versus attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. A dysfunction complex or different entities?. HNO 54 (05) 405-408 , 410–414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Purdy SC, Arlington B, Johnstone C. 2000; Normative data for the New Zealand recording of the CVC (revised AB) word lists. NZ Audiol Soc Bull 10: 20-26 , 28–29
    Google Scholar
  • Purdy SC, Kelly AS, Davies MG. 2002; Auditory brainstem response, middle latency response, and late cortical evoked potentials in children with learning disabilities. J Am Acad Audiol 13 (07) 367-382
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Purdy SC, Kelly AS, Thorne PR. 2001; Auditory evoked potentials as measures of plasticity in humans. Audiol Neurootol 6 (04) (Suppl) 211-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rosenberg GG. 2002; Classroom acoustics and personal FM technology in management of auditory processing disorder. Semin Hear 23: 309-317
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • Rosenberg GG, Blake-Rahter P, Heavner J, Allen L, Redmond BM, Phillips J, Stigers K. 1999; Improving classroom acoustics (ICA): a three-year FM sound field classroom amplification study. J Educ Audiol 7: 8-28
    Google Scholar
  • Sandford JA, Turner A. 1995. Integrated Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test. Richmond, VA: BrainTrain;
    Google Scholar
  • Schochat E, Musiek FE, Alonso R, Ogata J. 2010; Effect of auditory training on the middle latency response in children with (central) auditory processing disorder. Braz J Med Biol Res 43 (08) 777-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ. 2002; Rapid development of cortical auditory evoked potentials after early cochlear implantation. Neuroreport 13 (10) 1365-1368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sharma M, Purdy SC, Kelly AS. 2009; Comorbidity of auditory processing, language, and reading disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res 52 (03) 706-722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sharma M, Purdy SC, Newall P, Wheldall K, Beaman R. 2007; Refractory effects on auditory-evoked responses in children with reading disorders. Neuroreport 18 (02) 133-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sharma M, Purdy SC, Newall P, Wheldall K, Beaman R, Dillon H. 2006; Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence of auditory processing deficits in children with reading disorder. Clin Neurophysiol 117 (05) 1130-1144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stach B, Loiselle L, Jerger J, Mintz S, Taylor C. 1987; Clinical experience with personal FM assistive listening devices. Hear J 40: 24-30
    Google Scholar
  • Stein R. 1998. Application of FM technology to management of central auditory processing disorders. In: Masters GA, Stecker NA, Katz J. , eds. Central Auditory Processing Disorders: Mostly Management. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 89-92
    Google Scholar
  • Stollman MH, van Velzen ECW, Simkens HMF, Snik AF, van den Broek P. 2003; Assessment of auditory processing in 6-year-old language-impaired children. Int J Audiol 42 (06) 303-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T, Ponton C, Otis B. 2001; Central auditory plasticity: changes in the N1-P2 complex after speech-sound training. Ear Hear 22 (02) 79-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Warrier CM, Johnson KL, Hayes EA, Nicol T, Kraus N. 2004; Learning impaired children exhibit timing deficits and training-related improvements in auditory cortical responses to speech in noise. Exp Brain Res 157 (04) 431-441
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wible B, Nicol T, Kraus N. 2005; Correlation between brainstem and cortical auditory processes in normal and language-impaired children. Brain 128 Pt 2 417-423
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wilson WJ, Arnott W, Henning C. 2013; A systematic review of electrophysiological outcomes following auditory training in school-age children with auditory processing deficits. Int J Audiol 52 (11) 721-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar