Auditory Brainstem Responses in Children with Auditory Processing Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ASHA recommends including electrophysiological measures in an auditory processing disorder (APD) assessment battery, but few audiologists do so, potentially because of limited published evidence for its utility. PURPOSE: This study compared the auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) of children with APD with age-matched children and adults. STUDY SAMPLE: This study retrospectively examined the records of 108 children suspected of APD (sAPD) who had click-evoked ABRs recorded as part of their clinical assessment. Twenty adults and 22 typically developing (TD) children were recruited as controls. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Click-evoked ABRs were recorded at slow (13.3 clicks/sec) and faster (57.7 clicks/sec) stimulation rates. ABRs were analyzed using typical clinical measures (latencies and interpeak intervals for waves I, III, and V) and using a model proposed by Ponton et al that offered a more detailed analysis of axonal conduction time and synaptic transmission delay. RESULTS: Both clinical measures and the Ponton model analysis showed no significant differences between TD children and adults. Children sAPD showed absolute latencies that were significantly prolonged when compared with adults but not when compared with TD children. But individual children sAPD showed clinically significant delays (>2 standard deviations of TD children's data). Examination of responses delineating axonal versus synaptic transmission showed significant delays in synaptic transmission in the group of children sAPD in comparison to TD children and adults. These results suggest that a significant portion of children with listening difficulties showed evidence of reduced or atypical brainstem functioning. Examining the responses for axonal and synaptic delays revealed evidence of a synaptic pattern of abnormalities in a significant portion (37.03%) of children sAPD. Such observations could provide objective evidence of factors potentially contributing to listening difficulties that are frequently reported in children identified with APD. CONCLUSIONS: Children sAPD often showed abnormalities in the ABR, suggesting a neurophysiologic origin of their reported difficulties, frequently originating at or before the first synapse. This study provides supportive evidence for the value of click-evoked ABRs in comprehensive auditory processing assessment batteries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".