Skip to main content

Clinical evaluation of central auditory processing functions in the elderly

En

Abstract

Background

Central auditory processing dysfunction is a general term that is applied to individuals whose hearing in quiet settings is normal or almost normal, and yet who have substantial hearing difficulty in the presence of auditory stressors such as competing noise and other difficult hearing situations. It is noticed that the prevalence of central auditory processing dysfunction increases with age.

Objectives

Evaluation of the effects of aging on central auditory processing in elderly individuals who report good hearing sensitivity.

Methodology

Thirty elderly individuals ranging in age from 60 to 75 years, right-handed, and who reported good hearing sensitivity participated in this study. The results of the synthetic sentence identification with an ipsilateral competitive message (SSI–ICM) and staggered spondee words (SSW) tests were compared with those of 15 young adults ranging in age from 20 to 40 years with normal hearing sensitivity as a control group.

Results

The findings of the study showed a statistically significant difference between the control group and the elderly group in terms of SSI, with a lower percentage in the elderly group. The results of the SSW test showed that there was a significant difference in scoring between competing and noncompeting conditions, with more affection in the competing condition in both the control and the elderly groups. When we compared the control group and the elderly group in terms of the SSW error score in the competing condition in both ears, it was found that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups, with more error scores in the elderly group.

Conclusion

Central auditory processing is affected by aging as shown by the lower percentage of results of the SSI–ICM test and more errors in the SSW test mainly in the competing conditions relative to the control group.

References

  1. Cooper JC Jr., Gates GA. Central auditory processing disorders in the elderly: the effects of pure tone average and maximum word recognition. Ear Hear. 1992;13:278–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Golding M, Taylor A, Cupples L, Mitchell P. Odds of demonstrating auditory processing abnormality in the average older adult: the blue mountains hearing study. Ear Hear. 2006; 27: 129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellis TJ. Auditory processing disorders: it’s not just kids who have them. Hear J. 2003; 56: 10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. American Academy of Audiology. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and management of children and adults with central auditory processing disorder. American Academy of Audiology; 2010.

  5. Pichora-Fuller MK. Cognitive aging and auditory information processing. Int J Audiol. 2003;42(Suppl 2):2S26–2S32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cruz OLM, Kasse CA, Sanchez M, Barbosa F, Barros FA. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors in auditory processing disorders in elderly patients: preliminary results. Laryngoscope. 2004;114(9 I):1656–1659

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Phillips DP, Farmer ME. Acquired word deafness, and the temporal grain of sound representation in the primary auditory cortex. Behav Brain Res. 1990; 40: 85–94

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kraus N, McGee TJ, Carrell TD, Zecker SG, Nicol TG, Koch DB. Auditory neurophysiologic responses and discrimination deficits in children with learning problems. Science. 1996; 273: 971–973

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bellis TJ, Nicol T, Kraus N. Aging affects hemispheric asymmetry in the neural representation of speech sounds. J Neurosci. 2000; 20: 791–797

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jerger J, Moncrieff D, Greenwald R, Wambacq I, Seipel A. Effect of age on interaural asymmetry of event-related potentials in a dichotic listening task. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000; 11: 383–389

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wible B, Nicol T, Kraus N. Correlation between brainstem and cortical auditory processes in normal and language-impaired children. Brain. 2005; 128: 417–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Song J, Banai K, Russo N, Kraus N. On the relationship between speech- and non-speech evoked brainstem responses in children. Audiol Neurotol. 2006; 11: 233–241

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Musiek FE, Gollegly KM, Kibbe KS, Verkest SB. Current concepts on the use of ABR and auditory psychophysical tests in the evaluation of brain stem lesions. Am J Otol. 1988;9(Suppl):25–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jerger J, Jerger S. Clinical validity of central auditory tests. Scand Audiol. 1975; 4: 147–163 Quoted from Jerger et al. (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Musiek FE, Wilson DH. SSW and dichotic digit results pre- and post-commissurotomy: a case report. J Speech Hear Disord. 1979; 44: 528–533 Quoted from Music et al. (1998)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Katz J. The use of staggered spondaic words for assessing the integrity of the central auditory nervous system. J Auditory Res. 1962; 2: 327–337 Quoted from Katz (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Katz J. Tentative criteria for individuals 60 through 79 years. SSW Rep. 1990; 12: 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  18. Keith RW. Interpretation of the Staggered spondee word (SSW) test. Ear Hear. 1983; 4: 287–292

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Katz J. Central test battery. Vancouver, WA: Precision Acoustics; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hellige J. Hemispheric asymmetry: what’s right and what’s left. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Skinner MW. Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: effects of high-frequency compensation. J Acoust Soc Am. 1980; 67: 306–317

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Maura L, Flavio B, Flavia B, Mauricio M, Heloisa H. Auditory processing assessment in older people with no report of hearing disability. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2008; 74: 896–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Katz J, Ivey R. Spondaic procedures in central testing. Handbook of clinical audiology. In: Katz J, editor. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1994. pp. 239–255.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Medwetsky L. Central auditory processing testing: a battery approach. In: Katz J, editor. Handbook of clinical audiology. 26 Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 2002. pp. 510–524.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Martin JS, Jerger JF. Some effects of aging on central auditory processing. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(Suppl 2):25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soha Mohamed Hamada.

Additional information

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hamada, S.M., El Sebie Besher, A., Omara, A.A.M. et al. Clinical evaluation of central auditory processing functions in the elderly. Egypt J Otolaryngol 28, 208–213 (2012). https://doi.org/10.7123/01.EJO.0000418019.70401.06

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.7123/01.EJO.0000418019.70401.06

Keywords

  • central auditory processing
  • staggered spondaic words
  • synthetic sentence identification