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

Lunardelo, Pamela Papile; Fukuda, Marisa Tomoe Hebihara; Stefanelli, Ana Cecília Grilli Fernandes; Zanchetta, Sthella

doi:10.1590/2317-1782/20232022044pt

Table of contents previous current next

Table of contents

Systematic Review • CoDAS 35 (2) • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20232022044en linkcopy

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

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

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.

Keywords:
Adults; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Auditory Processing; Auditory Processing Disorder; ystematic Review

Author (Year)		Condition studied	Assessment behavioral	Main results of behavioral assessment of auditory processing
Author (Year)		Characterization of the population	Assessment behavioral
1	Cameron et al.(³⁶)	Healthy	LISN-S	● Worse performance of speech comprehension in noise for the group of older adults (30-60 years old) than the younger ones (18-30 years old);
		N=132		● Ability to use spatial cues does not diminish in individuals with normal hearing until age 60.
		Young: 36 (12-17 years)
		Adults: 96 (18-60 years)
2	O’Beirne et al.(³⁷)	Healthy	LPFST	● There was no difference between the scores obtained in the RE and LE in both groups;
		N=63		● Improvement in performance with increasing age between 17 and 34 years, decline in speech understanding from 35 years of age.
		Adults= 15 (28.5 years)
		Children= 15 (10.1 years)
3	Liberalesso et al.(⁵⁷)	Sleep Deprivation	SSW, RGDT	● Worse performance on RGDT and SSW after 24 hours of deprivation
		N=90 (18-40 years)		of sleep;
				● No sex effect on SSW and RGDT.
4	Sininger et al.(³⁵)	Hearing lateralization	Discrimination of intensity, frequency and temporal resolution	● Lower threshold for detection of silent interval in LE;
		N=34 (18-32 years)		● LE advantage for tonal stimulus, no advantage for noise;
		Education: Average - 15.69 years		● Difference between RE and LE for intensity discrimination decreased with age.
		Musical training: Average - 2.7 years
5	Iliadou et al.(²⁸)	Psychosis	GIN, RGDT	● No difference between the Psychosis and Musicians group in the GIN test;
		N=90		●Psychosis Group with better performance in the GIN in relation to the RGDT;
		Psychosis= 17 (18-48 years)		● Best performance for the Musicians group in the RGDT.
		Musicians= 11 (28-61 years)
6	Saunders et al.(⁵⁸)	War veterans exposed to blast	HINT, LISN-S, ATTR, TCST, SSW	● 75% reported having difficulty understanding speech in noise;
		N=99 (25-53 years)		● 56.6% found it difficult to follow conversations;
		Complaint: 80% migraine; 73% Dizziness		● 60% showed alterations in the HINT and 33.7% in the SSW.
		Health condition: 19% PTSD
		Education: High School - Undergraduate
7	Prestes et al.(²⁹)	Stutter	DPS, RGDT	● Stuttering group with better performance in DPS and RGDT in relation to non-stutterers, with values below normality.
		N=41
		Control= 21 (18-46 years)
		Study= 20 (18-46 years)
8	Kumar et al.(³⁹)	Healthy	TFC, SPIN	● Younger adults performed better on both tests;
		N=29		● Worse performance of young and older adults with increasing comprehension rate and/or signal-to-noise ratio.
		Control= 15 (18-25 years)
		Study= 14 (30-50 years)
9	Przewoźny et al.(⁵⁹)	Arterial hypertension	MAA, RGDT	● Arterial hypertension group with higher silent interval detection thresholds, but with no significant difference between the groups;
		N=64		● Arterial hypertension group with worse sound localization performance.
		Control= 32 (52.8 years)
		Study= 32 (53.1 years)
		Health condition: Pharmacological treatment; Incidence of hyperlipidemia; smoking.
10	Santiago et al.(⁶⁰)	Healthy	MLD	● Positive correlation between MLD and waves V, A and F of the FFR;
10	Santiago et al.(⁶⁰)	N=20 (18-30 years)	MLD	● The higher the latency of waves V, A and F, the higher the MLD.
11	Roup et al.(⁶¹)	Hearing difficulty	SCAN-3:A, MLD	● All individuals with complaints showed altered performance in at least one of the behavioral tests;
		N=37	GIN, DDT, SPIN	● 12% showed alterations in MLD and SCAN-A:3, 41% in DDT, 53% in GIN, 71% to 88%.
		Study= 20 (19-27 years)
		Control= 17 (18-58 years)
12	Gallun et al.(⁶²)	War veterans exposed to blast	GIN, DDT, PPS, SSW, MLD	● War veterans and control group with the worst RE performance in the GIN;
		N=59		● War veterans with the worst performance in DDT, SSW, PPS and MLD.
		Control= 29 (39.2 years)
		Study= 30 (37.3 years)
		Health condition: 56.7% PTSD
13	Mishra et al.(²⁴)	Diabetes Mellitus Type 2	GDT	● Diabetes group with the highest silent interval detection threshold;
		N=30		● Mean threshold in GDT: GE= 6.49 ms (0.81); GC=3.33 ms (0.79).
		Control= 15 (30-40 years)
		Study= 15 (30-40 years)
14	Ibraheem et al.(²³)	Tinnitus	GIN	● Tinnitus group with worse performance in the GIN test;
		N=30		● No correlation between GIN and tinnitus duration, subjective scale, audiological profile and psychoacoustic measures of tinnitus;
		Control= 15 (20-45 years)		● Positive correlation between OAE amplitude and GIN scores.
		Study= 15 (20-45 years)
15	Silva et al.(³³)	Diabetes Mellitus Type 1	List of Sentences in Portuguese	● Significant differences between the groups with and without diabetes for the recognition threshold in silence, in noise and in the signal-to-noise ratio.
		N=40
		Control=20 (18-30 years)
		Study=20 (18-30 years)
16	Hoover et al.(³⁴)	Mild Traumatic Brain Injury	QuickSIN, SRM	●Presence of auditory handicap increases the probability of worse speech performance in noise;
		N=33		●No difference in speech comprehension performance in subjects with and without mild traumatic brain injury.
		Control= 9 (18-24 years)
		Study= 13 (25-71 years)
		Paired= 11 (20-70 years)
17	Arcuri et al.(²⁷)	Stutter	TFR, TDNV, SSW, DPS, PPS, SSI, RGDT	●Stuttering group with the worst performance in the TDNV and PPS tests;
		N=30		●14 participants of the Stuttering Group presented alterations in the CAPD.
		Control= 15 (18-40 years)
		Study= 15 (18-40 years)
18	Yeend et al.(³¹)	Noise exposure	LISN-S, NALDCT, TFS, AM	●No correlation between lifetime noise exposure and performance of auditory processing tasks;
		N=122 (30-60 years)		●Positive correlation between speech comprehension in noise and working memory, attention, high-frequency tonal thresholds and suppression strength of the medial olivocochlear system.
		Complaint: Tinnitus; difficulty understanding speech in noise; discomfort for loud sounds
		Education: 68% Graduates; 25% Technical qualification; 6% High School
		Health conditions: Smoking; use of ototoxic; otitis history
		Musical training: 18% ≤ 8 years; 40% ≥ 8 years; 17% professionals; 25% no experience
		Noise exposure: 70% occupational
19	Fostick et al.(³²)	Dyslexia	Judgment of temporal order	●Dyslexia group with worse performance in temporal processing;
		N=101		●Positive correlation between working memory performance and temporal processing with reading and phonological processing.
		Control= 23 (20-33 years)
		Study= 78 (20-33 years)
		Education: 13 to 15 years
20	Habibi et al.(²⁵)	Multiple Sclerosis	SSW persian version, DDT	●46% of the multiple sclerosis group showed alterations in the SSW;
		N=90		●Multiple Sclerosis group with higher percentage of qualitative and quantitative errors in SSW and worse performance in DDT.
		Control= 45 (25-45 years)
		Study= 45 (25-45 years)
		Multiple Sclerosis= 04 to 10 years
21	Trott et al.(²⁰)	Post-menopause	DDT, DPS, LINS-S, SPIN-R	●No difference between pre- and post-menopausal women for DDT, DPS and SPIN-R;
		N=28 (18-70 years)		●Worse performance of the postmenopausal group on LISN-S.
		Control= 14
		Study= 14
22	Sanguebuche et al.(⁶³)	CAPD	DSI, MLD, PPS, DPS, RGDT, TFCA	●18 to 29 years: Better scores for the CG, except in the RE of the DSI and in both ears of the TFCA;
		N=94		●30 to 58 years: Best scores for the CG in the DSI (LE), RGDT and TFCA (RE).
		Control= 64 (18-59 years)
		Study= 30 (18-59 years)
		Education: Minimum of 11 years
23	Turcatto et al.(³⁰)	CAPD	DDT, PPS, TFC	●Better performance of the group without CAPD in the PPS;
		N=40		●Similar performance between individuals with and without CAPD in DDT;
		Control= 20 (18-35 years)		●Association between scores on the self-perception scale and the
		Study = 20 (18-35 years)		list of monosyllables in the TFC.
		Education: 95% incomplete higher education
24	Pham et al.(⁶⁴)	Nicotine	GDT	●Lower silent interval detection threshold with nicotine use;
		N=14 (18-27 years)		●Better performance of selective attention with nicotine use.
		Health conditions: Oxygenation monitoring

location_on

Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia Al. Jaú, 684, 7º andar, 01420-002 São Paulo - SP Brasil, Tel./Fax 55 11 - 3873-4211 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@codas.org.br

rss_feed Stay informed of issues for this journal through your RSS reader

[1] Caption: LINS-S = Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences; LPFST = Low-pass Filtered Speech Test; CAPD = Central Auditory Processing Disorder; RE = Right Ear; LE = Left Ear; SSW = Staggered Spondaic Word Test; PTSD = Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; RGDT = Random Gap Detection Test; ms = milliseconds; GIN = Gap in Noise Test; HINT = Hearing in Noise Test; ATTR = Adaptive Tests of Temporal Resolution; TCST = Time Compressed Speech Test; LLAEP = Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potential; DPS = Duration Pattern Sequence; TFC = Compressed Speech Test; SPIN = Speech Perception in Noise Test; PASN = Sensorineural Hearing Loss; CG = Control Group; EG = Study Group; MAA = Horizontal Minimum Audible Angle Test; MLD = Masking Level Difference; ABR = Auditory Brainstem Response; FFR = Frequency Following Response; SCAN A = Tests for Auditory Processing Disorders in Adolescents and Adults; DDT = Dichotic Digit Test; PPS = Pitch Pattern Sequence; GDT = Gap Detection Threshold; QuickSIN = Quick Speech in Noise; SRM = Spatial Release from Masking; OAE = Otoacoustic Emission; TFR = Speech-in-Noise Test; TDNV = Non-verbal Dichotic Test; NALDCT = National Acoustic Laboratories Dynamic Conversations Test; TFS = Temporal Fine Structure; AM = Amplitude Modulation; SSI = Synthetic Sentence Identification; DSI = Identification of Dichotic Sentences; TFCA = Adapted Compressed Speech Test