Pitch and Duration Pattern Sequence Tests in 7-to 11-Year-Old Children: Results Depend on Response Mode

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
9
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2019
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
AMER ACAD AUDIOLOGY
Autores
BALEN, Sheila Andreoli
MOORE, David R.
Citação
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF AUDIOLOGY, v.30, n.1, p.6-15, 2019
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Pitch pattern sequence (PPS) and duration pattern sequence (DPS) tests are frequently used in the assessment of auditory processing disorder. Current recommendations suggest alternate, interchangeable modes for responding to stimuli. Purpose: The objective of the study is to evaluate the influence of response mode (i.e., humming, pointing, and labeling) and age on PPS and DPS performance of 7- to 11-year-old children. Research Design: Laboratory-based testing of school children. Cross-sectional comparison of age, with repeated measures of age, test, ear, and response mode. Study Sample: From 452 children recruited, 228 right-handed children (109 girls) aged 7 years to 11 years 11 months (mean age 9 years 4 months) completed at least one test (PPS: 211, DPS: 198), and 181 children completed both tests. Audiology inclusion criteria include normal hearing thresholds (<= 15 dB HL at octave frequencies 250-8000 Hz); word recognition in quiet >= 92%; tympanogram peak compensated static acoustic compliance 0.4-1.6 mmhos; and tympanometric peak pressure -100 to + 50 daPa, all in both ears. Other inclusion criteria were Portuguese as first language; right handed; no musical training; no related, known, or observed phonological, learning, neurologic, psychiatric, or behavioral disorder; otologic history; and delayed neuropsychomotor or language development. Data Collection and Analysis: PPS: 30 trials per ear and response condition of three consecutive 500 msec duration intermixed high (1430 Hz) or low (880 Hz) frequency tones presented monaurally at 50 dB HL. The first response condition was humming followed by labeling (naming: high or low). DPS: As per PPS except 1000 Hz tones of intermixed 500 (long) and 250 msec (short) duration. First response was pointing (at a symbolic object) followed by labeling. Trends across age and between tests were assessed using repeated measures generalized linear mixed models. Correlation coefficients were calculated to assess relations among test scores. The two-sided significance level was 0.05. Results: Older children performed better than younger children in all tasks. Humming the tone pattern (PPS humming) produced generally better performance than either articulating the attributes of the tones (labeling) or pointing to objects representing tone duration. PPS humming produced ceiling performance for many children of all ages. For both labeling tasks and DPS pointing, performance was better on the PPS than on the DPS, for stimulation of the right than the left ear, and in boys than girls. Individual performance on the two tasks was highly correlated. Conclusions: Response mode does matter in the PPS and DPS. Results from humming should not be combined with or be a substitute for results obtained from a labeling response. Tasks that rely on labeling a tonal stimulus should be avoided in testing hearing in children or other special populations.
Palavras-chave
auditory processing disorder, children, duration pattern test, pitch pattern test
Referências
  1. AAA - American Academy of Audiology, 2010, CLIN PRACT GUID DIAG
  2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), 2005, CENTR AUD PROC DIS R
  3. Bregman A. S., 1990, AUDITORY SCENE ANAL
  4. Cameron S, 2007, EAR HEARING, V28, P196, DOI 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318031267f
  5. Cameron S, 2016, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V27, P458, DOI 10.3766/jaaa.15084
  6. Chermak GD, 2017, INT J AUDIOL, V56, P499, DOI 10.1080/14992027.2017.1284351
  7. Dillon H, 2014, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V25, P699
  8. Emanuel DC, 2011, AM J AUDIOL, V20, P48, DOI 10.1044/1059-0889(2011/10-0019)
  9. Ferguson MA, 2011, J SPEECH LANG HEAR R, V54, P211, DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0167)
  10. Grube M, 2012, P ROY SOC B-BIOL SCI, V279, P4496, DOI 10.1098/rspb.2012.1817
  11. Huyck JJ, 2011, DEVELOPMENTAL SCI, V14, P614, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01009.x
  12. Kraus N, 2010, NAT REV NEUROSCI, V11, P599, DOI 10.1038/nrn2882
  13. McDermott EE, 2016, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V27, P72, DOI 10.3766/jaaa.14050
  14. Moore DR, 2018, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V29, P364, DOI 10.3766/jaaa.16130
  15. Moore DR, 2012, J COMMUN DISORD, V45, P411, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.06.006
  16. Moore DR, 2010, PEDIATRICS, V126, pE382, DOI 10.1542/peds.2009-2826
  17. Musiek F E, 1994, J Am Acad Audiol, V5, P265
  18. Musiek F. E., 1994, NEUROAUDIOLOGY CASE
  19. MUSIEK FE, 1990, AUDIOLOGY, V29, P304
  20. MUSIEK FE, 1987, AUDIOLOGY, V26, P79
  21. Musiek FE, 2002, HEARING J, V55, P58, DOI 10.1097/01.HJ.0000293280.99394.DD
  22. Musiek FE, 2011, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V22, P342, DOI 10.3766/jaaa.22.6.4
  23. Russo ICAP, 2011, PRCITICA AUDIOLOGIA
  24. Sanes DH, 2011, NEURON, V72, P912, DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.12.005
  25. Shinn J.B., 2003, HEAR J, V56, P52
  26. Skoe E, 2015, J COGNITIVE NEUROSCI, V27, P124, DOI 10.1162/jocn_a_00691
  27. Tomlin D, 2015, EAR HEARING, V36, P527, DOI 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000172
  28. Tomlin D, 2014, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V25, P541, DOI 10.3766/jaaa.25.6.4
  29. Walker KMM, 2006, BRAIN RES, V1124, P126, DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.080
  30. Werner LA, 2007, J COMMUN DISORD, V40, P275, DOI 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2007.03.004
  31. Willeford JA, 1985, ASSESSMENT CENTRAL A
  32. Zhang Y, 2005, NEUROIMAGE, V26, P703, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.040
  33. 2011, EAR HEARING, V32, P269, DOI 10.1097/AUD.0B013E318201C468
  34. 1997, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, V34, P534
  35. 2015, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V26, P652, DOI 10.3766/JAAA.14108
  36. 2006, J ACOUST SOC AM, V119, P1616, DOI 10.1121/1.2164988