Inter)nationally there is discussion about whether auditory processing disorders (APD) should be seen as a unique clinical diagnosis and what is the most appropriate diagnosis and referral of children in this target group. In this context, the Dutch Audiological Centres (AC) have different care pathways for children with so-called unexplained listening difficulties. The purpose of the current document is to provide professionals with tools to identify, diagnose and treat children with listening difficulties. The Dutch Position Statement Children with Listening Difficulties has been developed based on current scientific evidence of listening difficulties, and based on meetings held with professionals. Professionals in the Dutch Audiological Centres have reached a consensus with the following 9 statements: Definition: (1) The target group 'Children with listening difficulties' is not a unique and demonstrable clinical entity. (2) The problems of children with listening difficulties are multimodal. (3) The symptoms of children with listening difficulties may also occur in children with other developmental disorders such as AD(H)D, DLD, dyslexia and learning disorders. Detection and referral: (4) After detection of listening difficulties, children can be referred to a multidisciplinary centre. Diagnostics: (5) When diagnosing a child with listening difficulties, an audiologist, a speech language therapist and a behavioral scientist must be involved. (6) Listening difficulties are initially mapped using patient history (with client-centred focus) and, if available, a validated questionnaire. (7) In the case of children with listening difficulties, a speech-in-noise test is always carried out in addition to the pure tone and speech audiometry (8) The diagnostic procedure for listening difficulties starts from a broad perspective on development. Therapy: (9) For children with listening difficulties, intervention is focused on the client’s needs and focuses on action-oriented practice. This document informs professionals in the Netherlands, who are working with children who are referred because of listening difficulties in the absence of hearing loss, about the current evidence available and about the consensus in the Netherlands.
DOCUMENT
The importance of hearing parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children learning sign language is well documented. However, parents face many challenges in this learning process. This study investigates the experiences of Dutch hearing parents learning Dutch Sign Language (NGT) or Sign-supported Dutch through semi-structured interviews with 21 parents and 6 NGT teachers. The interviews explored parents’ and teachers’ perspectives on parental sign language courses, additional learning materials, and the challenges parents face in learning sign language. The findings highlight the value of DHH teachers and home-based initial courses, as well as the importance of courses aligning with the child’s developmental stage and extending beyond vocabulary level. Both parents and teachers appreciated learning materials that could be used together by parent and child but expressed a need for additional and more elaborate resources. Common challenges included language-specific difficulties, such as mastering sign order and adapting to a visual language, and external barriers, such as difficulties accessing courses and conf licting expert advice regarding the use of sign language. These findings underscore the need for more accessible courses, longer-duration support, and greater consistency among professionals in their advice. This would better support hearing parents in effectively learning sign language and ensuring their DHH children have full access to language from an early age.
LINK
Background: Children with difficulties in listening and understanding speech despite normal peripheral hearing, can be diagnosed with the diagnosis Auditory Processing Disorder (A). However, there are doubts about the validity of this diagnosis. The aim of this study was to examine the relation between the listening difficulties of children between 8 and 12 years with suspected A and the attention, working memory, nonverbal intelligence and communication abilities of these children.Material and methods: In this case-control study we examined 10 children who reported listening difficulties in spite of normal peripheral hearing (3 referred by speech-language pathologist in the Northern Netherlands, 6 by an audiological center in the Southern Netherlands and one by parental concern) and 21 typically developing children (recruitment through word of mouth and by the website Taalexpert.nl), ages 8;0 to 12;0 years. The parents of all children completed three questionnaires about history, behavioral symptoms of ADHD, and communication skills (Children’s Communication Checklist). Teachers of the children completed the Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale (CHAPPS). Children were assessed for auditory processing abilities (speech-in-noise, filtered speech, binaural fusion, dichotic listening), nonverbal intelligence (Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices), and working memory (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals). Auditory and visual attention was studied with four behavioral tests of the WAFF battery of the Vienna Test System (Schuhfried).Results: Preliminary analysis shows no differences between groups on the auditory processing tests and nonverbal intelligence quotient. Children in the experimental group have poorer communication performance (parent report), poorer listening skills (teacher report), and poorer working memory and attention skills (behavioral tests).Conclusions: The results of this study showed that there is a difference between children with listening complaints and typically developing children, but that the problems are not specific to the auditory modality. There seems to be no evidence for the validity of an auditory deficit.
DOCUMENT
Background: Auditory processing disorder (APD) is a diagnosis that is widely discussed. Children diagnosed with APD have difficulty listening in complex situations, despite a well-functioning peripheral hearing. However, there seems to be no evidence for the validity of a purely auditory deficit. The aim of this study is to examine the differences in performance between children with suspected APD and typically developing children on tests of communication, auditory processing, nonverbal intelligence, working memory, and visual and auditory attention. Methods: In a case-control study we examined 9 children with suspected APD and 21 typically developing children, ages 8;0 to 12;0 years. The parents of all children completed three questionnaires about history, behavioral symptoms of ADHD, and communication skills. The teachers of the children completed the Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale (CHAPPS). The children themselves were assessed for auditory processing abilities, nonverbal intelligence, working memory, and auditory and visual attention. Results: No differences were found between groups in age, nonverbal intelligence quotient, and performance on auditory processing tests. Children with suspected APD have significantly poorer communication performance (parent report), poorer listening skills (teacher report), poorer working memory and poorer auditory and visual skills. Conclusion: There is a difference between children with suspected APD and typically developing children. Children with suspected APD perform insufficient on tests of working memory, and have a slower response to auditory and visual attention tasks. Parents of children with suspected APD report difficulties in communication and teachers assess the children of being at risk for listening difficulties.
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
Background: Early detection and remediation of language disorders are important in helping children to establish appropriate communicative and social behaviour and acquire additional information about the world through the use of language. In the Netherlands, children with (a suspicion of) language disorders are referred to speech and hearing centres for multidisciplinary assessment. Reliable data are needed on the nature of language disorders, as well as the age and source of referral, and the effects of cultural and socioeconomic profiles of the population served in order to plan speech and language therapy service provision. Aims: To provide a detailed description of caseload characteristics of children referred with a possible language disorder by generating more understanding of factors that might influence early identification. Methods & Procedures: A database of 11,450 children was analysed consisting of data on children, aged 2–7 years (70% boys, 30% girls), visiting Dutch speech and hearing centres. The factors analysed were age of referral, ratio of boys to girls, mono‐ and bilingualism, nature of the language delay, and language profile of the children. Outcomes & Results:Results revealed an age bias in the referral of children with language disorders. On average, boys were referred 5 months earlier than girls, and monolingual children were referred 3 months earlier than bilingual children. In addition, bilingual children seemed to have more complex problems at referral than monolingual children. They more often had both a disorder in both receptive and expressive language, and a language disorder with additional (developmental) problems. Conclusions & Implications: This study revealed a bias in age of referral of young children with language disorders. The results implicate the need for objective language screening instruments and the need to increase the awareness of staff in primary child healthcare of red flags in language development of girls and multilingual children aiming at earlier identification of language disorders in these children.
DOCUMENT
There is still no consensus about the nature of auditory processing disorders (APD). One of the most frequently reported symptoms for APD is difficulties with hearing and listening, especially in the presence of background noise, despite having normal peripheral hearing (ASHA, 2005; Jerger & Musiek, 2000). It is unclear whether there is a behavioral characteristic or whole set of symptoms that is solely attributable to problems with auditory processing. Such a distinctive feature could help audiologists and speech-language pathologists to differentiate APD from other developmental disorders. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the literature on characteristics of children with suspected APD and to determine whether there is a distinctive feature.
DOCUMENT
Assistive Technology (AT) is any technology that supports people with functional difficulties to perform their daily activities with less difficulty and/or obstruction, thus contributing to a more fulfilling life. This refers to people of all ages and to all kinds of functional limitations, either permanent or temporary. Assistive products can be traditional physical products, such as wheelchairs, eyeglasses, hearing aids, or prostheses, but they can also be special input devices, care robots, computers with accessible software, apps for smartphones, home automation solutions, virtual realities, etc. It is essential to understand that AT involves more than just familiar products, and that it also includes knowledge about the personalized selection of appropriate solutions, provisions, and services, as well as the training of all parties involved, the measurement of outcomes and impacts, awareness of ethical issues, etc.
DOCUMENT
Objectives: Animals with induced tinnitus showed difficulties in detecting silent gaps in sounds, suggesting that the tinnitus percept may be filling the gap. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the applicability of this approach to detect tinnitus in human patients. The authors first hypothesized that gap detection would be impaired in patients with tinnitus, and second, that gap detection would be more impaired at frequencies close to the tinnitus frequency of the patient. Design: Twenty-two adults with bilateral tinnitus, 20 age-matched and hearing loss–matched subjects without tinnitus, and 10 young normal-hearing subjects participated in the study. To determine the characteristics of the tinnitus, subjects matched an external sound to their perceived tinnitus in pitch and loudness. To determine the minimum detectable gap, the gap threshold, an adaptive psychoacoustic test was performed three times by each subject. In this gap detection test, four different stimuli, with various frequencies and bandwidths, were presented at three intensity levels each. Results: Similar to previous reports of gap detection, increasing sensation level yielded shorter gap thresholds for all stimuli in all groups. Interestingly, the tinnitus group did not display elevated gap thresholds in any of the four stimuli. Moreover, visual inspection of the data revealed no relation between gap detection performance and perceived tinnitus pitch. Conclusions: These findings show that tinnitus in humans has no effect on the ability to detect gaps in auditory stimuli. Thus, the testing procedure in its present form is not suitable for clinical detection of tinnitus in humans.
LINK
PURPOSE: The purpose of this review article is to describe characteristics of auditory processing disorders (APD) by evaluating the literature in which children with suspected or diagnosed APD were compared with typically developing children and to determine whether APD must be regarded as a deficit specific to the auditory modality or as a multimodal deficit.METHOD: Six electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies investigating children with (suspected) APD in comparison with typically developing peers. Relevant studies were independently reviewed and appraised by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was quantified using the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's levels of evidence.RESULTS: Fifty-three relevant studies were identified. Five studies were excluded because of weak internal validity. In total, 48 studies were included, of which only 1 was classified as having strong methodological quality. Significant dissimilarities were found between children referred with listening difficulties and controls. These differences relate to auditory and visual functioning, cognition, language, reading, and physiological and neuroimaging measures.CONCLUSIONS: Methodological quality of most of the incorporated studies was rated moderate due to the heterogeneous groups of participants, inadequate descriptions of participants, and the omission of valid and reliable measurements. The listening difficulties of children with APD may be a consequence of cognitive, language, and attention issues rather than bottom-up auditory processing.
DOCUMENT
