Relation between Working Memory Capacity and Auditory Stream Segregation in Children with Auditory Processing Disorder

Document Type: Original Article(s)

Authors

1 Department of Audiology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Audiology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Social Medicine, School of Medicine, Zanjan, Iran

4 Department of Engineering, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: This study assessed the relationship between working memory capacity and auditory stream segregation by using the concurrent minimum audible angle in children with a diagnosed auditory processing disorder (APD).Methods: The participants in this cross-sectional, comparative study were 20 typically developing children and 15 children with a diagnosed APD (age, 9–11 years) according to the subtests of multiple-processing auditory assessment. Auditory stream segregation was investigated using the concurrent minimum audible angle. Working memory capacity was evaluated using the non-word repetition and forward and backward digit span tasks. Nonparametric statistics were utilized to compare the between-group differences. The Pearson correlation was employed to measure the degree of association between working memory capacity and the localization tests between the 2 groups.Results: The group with APD had significantly lower scores than did the typically developing subjects in auditory stream segregation and working memory capacity. There were significant negative correlations between working memory capacity and the concurrent minimum audible angle in the most frontal reference location (0° azimuth) and lower negative correlations in the most lateral reference location (60° azimuth) in the children with APD.Conclusion: The study revealed a relationship between working memory capacity and auditory stream segregation in children with APD. The research suggests that lower working memory capacity in children with APD may be the possible cause of the inability to segregate and group incoming information.

Keywords


  1. (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders [Internet]. Rockville: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. c2005. Available from http://www.asha.org/policy/TR2005-00043.
  2. Moore DR. Auditory processing disorder (APD): Definition, diagnosis, neural basis, and intervention. Audiological Medicine. 2006;4:4-11. doi: 0.1080/16513860600568573.
  3. Jerger J. Controversial issues in central auditory processing disorders. Seminars in Hearing. 1998;19:395-400. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1082986.
  4. Cameron S, Dillon H. The listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S): test-retest reliability study. Int J Audiol. 2007;46:145-53. doi: 10.1080/14992020601164170. PubMed PMID: 17365068.
  5. Bregman AS. Auditory scene analysis: the perceptual organization of sound. London: Cambridge; 1990.
  6. Alain C, Arnott SR. Selectively attending to auditory objects. Front Biosci. 2000;5:D202‑12. doi: 10.2741/Alain. PubMed PMID: 10702369.
  7. Snyder JS, Alain C. Toward a neurophysiological theory of auditory stream segregation. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:780‑99. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.780. PubMed PMID: 17723030.
  8. Winkler I, Denham SL, Nelken I. Modeling the auditory scene: predictive regularity representations and perceptual objects. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009;13:532-40. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.003. PubMed PMID: 19828357.
  9. Griffiths TD, Warren JD. The planum temporale as a computational hub. Trends Neurosci. 2002;25:348-53. doi: 10.1016/S0166-2236(02)02191-4. PubMed PMID: 12079762.
  10. Bodden M. Auditory demonstrations of a cocktail-party-processor. Acta Acustica united with Acustica. 1996;82:356-7.
  11. Darwin CJ. Listening to speech in the presence of other sounds. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;363:1011‑21. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2156. PubMed PMID: 17827106; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2606793.
  12. Heinrich A, Schneider BA, Craik FI. Investigating the influence of continuous babble on auditory short-term memory performance. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008;61:735-51. doi: 10.1080/17470210701402372. PubMed PMID: 17853231.
  13. Best V, van Schaik A, Carlile S. Separation of concurrent broadband sound sources by human listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115:324-36. doi: 10.1121/1.1632484. PubMed PMID: 14759025.
  14. Perrott DR. Concurrent minimum audible angle: A re‑examination of the concept of auditory spatial acuity. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1984;75:1201-6. doi: 10.1121/1.390771.
  15. Schow RL. Multiple auditory processing assessment: Auditec of St. Louis: Idaho State University; 2007.
  16. Tahaei AA. Development and evaluation of Dichotic Digit test in normal subjects. Tehran: Iran University of Medical Sciences; 1996. Persian.
  17. Arabi S. Development Persian version of monaural selective auditory attention test and determining its validity and reliability. Tehran: Iran University of Medical Sciences; 2013. Persian.
  18. Northern JL, Downs MP. Hearing in children. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
  19. Shahim S. Wechsler’s Revised Intelligence Scale for children/conformation and normalizing. Shiraz: Shiraz University; 2004. Persian.
  20. Baddeley A. Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003;4:829-39. doi: 10.1038/nrn1201. PubMed PMID: 14523382.
  21. Baddeley A, Gathercole S, Papagno C. The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological review. 1998;105:158.doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.158.
  22. Pickering S, Gathercole SE. Working memory test battery for children (WMTB-C). Psychological Corporation; 2001.
  23. Wechsler D. Manual for the Wechsler intelligence scale for children-III. New York: Psychological Corporation; 1991.
  24. Moossavi A, Khavarghazalani B, Lotfi Y, Mehrkian S, Bakhshi E, Mahmoodi Bakhtiari B. Validity and reliability of a non-sense syllable test for evaluating phonological working memory in Persian speaking children. Audiology Journal. 2014;23:31-9. Persian.
  25. Maerlender AC, Wallis DJ, Isquith PK. Psychometric and behavioral measures of central auditory function: The relationship between dichotic listening and digit span tasks. Child Neuropsychology. 2004;10:318‑27. doi: 10.1080/09297040490909314.
  26. Iliadou V, Bamiou DE. Psychometric evaluation of children with auditory processing disorder (APD): comparison with normal-hearing and clinical non-APD groups. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55:791‑9. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0035). PubMed PMID: 22232399.
  27. Mills AW. Auditory localization(Binaural acoustic field sampling, head movement and echo effect in auditory localization of sound sources position, distance and orientation). Foundations of modern auditory theory. 1972;2:303-48.
  28. Conway AR, Cowan N, Bunting MF. The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: the importance of working memory capacity. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001;8:331-5. doi: 10.3758/BF03196169. PubMed PMID: 11495122.
  29. Kidd G, Jr., Arbogast TL, Mason CR, Walsh M. Informational masking in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2002;3:107-19. PubMed PMID: 12162362; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3202403.
  30. Pichora-Fuller MK, Singh G. Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends Amplif. 2006;10:29-59. PubMed PMID: 16528429; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4111543.