Journal of Audiology & Otology

The Korean Audiology Society (대한청각학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Masking Level Difference: Performance of School Children Aged 7-12 Years

  • Received : 2019.12.29
  • Accepted : 2020.09.21
  • Published : 2021.04.20
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and Objectives: In masking level difference (MLD), the masked detection threshold for a signal is determined as a function of the relative interaural differences between the signal and the masker. Study 1 analyzed the results of school-aged children with good school performance in the MLD test, and study 2 compared their results with those of a group of children with poor academic performance. Subjects and Methods: Study 1 was conducted with 47 school-aged children with good academic performance (GI) and study 2 was carried out with 32 school-aged children with poor academic performance (GII). The inclusion criteria adopted for both studies were hearing thresholds within normal limits in basic audiological evaluation. Study 1 also considered normal performance in the central auditory processing test battery and absence of auditory complaints and/or of attention, language or speech issues. The MLD test was administered with a pure pulsatile tone of 500 Hz, in a binaural mode and intensity of 50 dBSL, using a CD player and audiometer. Results: In study 1, no significant correlation was observed, considering the influence of the variables age and sex in relation to the results obtained in homophase (SoNo), antiphase (SπNo) and MLD threshold conditions. The final mean MLD threshold was 13.66 dB. In study 2, the variables did not influence the test performance either. There was a significant difference between test results in SπNo conditions of the two groups, while no differences were found both in SoNo conditions and the final result of MLD. Conclusions: In study 1, the cut-off criterion of school-aged children in the MLD test was 9.3 dB. The variables (sex and age) did not interfere with the MLD results. In study 2, school performance did not differ in the MLD results. GII group showed inferior results than GI group, only in SπNo condition.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), grant (17/03317-6). We appreciate the collaboration of the school of Dona Castorina Cavalheiro staff, parents and children. The authors thank Espaco da Escrita - Research Rectory - School of Medical Sciences, the University of Campinas - for the language services provided.

References

  1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (Central) auditory processing disorders [Internet]. ASHA; 2005 [cited 2019 Apr 9]. Available from: URL: https://www.asha.org/policy/tr2005-00043/.
  2. Musiek FE, Chermak GD, Bamiou DE, Shinn J. CAPD: the most common 'hidden hearing loss' central auditory processing disorder--and not cochlear synaptopathy--is the most likely source of difficulty understanding speech in noise (despite normal audiograms). The ASHA Leader 2018;23:6-9.
  3. Hall JW, Buss E, Grose JH, Dev MB. Developmental effects in the masking-level difference. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004;47:13-20. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/002)
  4. Van Deun L, van Wieringen A, Van den Bogaert T, Scherf F, Offeciers FE, Van de Heyning PH, et al. Sound localization, sound lateralization, and binaural masking level differences in young children with normal hearing. Ear Hear 2009;30:178-90. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e318194256b
  5. Porter HL, Grantham DW, Ashmead DH, Tharpe AM. Binaural masking release in children with Down syndrome. Ear Hear 2014;35:e134-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000026
  6. McCullagh J, Bamiou DE. Measures of binaural interaction. In: Handbook of Central Auditory Processing Disorder: Auditory Neuroscience and Diagnosis (eds. Musiek FE, Chermak GD), 2nd ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing;2014. p.435-69.
  7. Hughes LE, Rowe JB, Ghosh BC, Carlyon RP, Plack CJ, Gockel HE. The binaural masking level difference: cortical correlates persist despite severe brain stem atrophy in progressive supranuclear palsy. J Neurophysiol 2014;112:3086-94. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00062.2014
  8. Cameron S, Dillon H. Remediation of spatial processing issues in CAPD. In: Handbook of Central Auditory Processing Disorder: Comprehensive Intervention (eds. Chermak GD, Musiek FE), 2nd ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing;2014. p.201-24.
  9. Bellis TJ. Assessment and management of central auditory processing disorders in the educational setting. From science to practice. 2nd ed. San Diego, USA: Plural Publishing;2013. p.51-102.
  10. Martins QP, Faccin VA, Bruckmann M, Gil D, Garcia MV. Masking level difference in schoolchildren: environmental analysis. Codas 2018;30:e20170048.
  11. Sousa FMAA. Learning disorders and difficulties: a perspective of interface between health and education. In: Disorders and Learning Difficulties: Better Understanding Students with Educational Needs Special (eds. Sampaio S, de Freitas IB), 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Wak Editora;2014. p.17-36.
  12. Hirsh IJ, Webster FA. Some determinants of interaural phase effects. J Acoust Soc Am 1949;21:496-501. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1906539
  13. Frota S. Auditory processing assessment: behavioral tests. In: Treaty of Audiology (eds. Bevilacqua MC, Martinez MAN, Balen AS, Pupo AC, Reis ACMB, Frota S). Sao Paulo: Santos;2011. p.293-313.
  14. Brown M, Musiek F. Pathways: the fundamentals of masking level differences for assessing auditory function. Hear J 2013;66:16-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000425772.41884.1d
  15. Branco-Barreiro FCA, Momensohn-Santos TM. Evaluation and intervention speech therapy of auditory processing disorder (central). In: Speech Therapy Treaty (eds. Fernandes FDM, Mendes BCA, Navas ALGP), 2nd ed. Sao Paulo: Roca;2009. p.232-8.
  16. Aithal V, Yonovitz AL, Aithal S, Dold N. Tonal masking level difference in children. Aust New Zeal J Audiol 2006;28:11-7. https://doi.org/10.1375/audi.28.1.11
  17. Mendes SDC, Branco-Barreiro FCA, Frota S. Masking level difference: reference values in adults. Audiol Commun Res 2017;22:e1746.
  18. Gicov RA, Tordin GC, Santos TMM, Branco-Barreiro FCA. Masking level difference in seven-to-eight-year-old children. RECES 2015;7:17-20.
  19. Northern JL, Downs MP. Childhood hearing. 5th ed. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Guanabara Koogan;2005. p.129-67.
  20. Jerger J, Speaks C, Trammell JL. A new approach to speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 1968;33:318-28. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.3304.318
  21. Jerger S, Jerger J. Hearing disorders: an assessment manual clinic. 1st ed. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Atheneu;1989. p.102.
  22. Pereira LD, Schochat E. Central auditory processing: evaluation manual. 1st ed. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Lovise;1997. p.49-60.
  23. Keith RW. Random gap detection test. St. Louis, USA: Auditec; 2000.
  24. Auditec. Evaluation manual of pitch pattern sequence and duration pattern sequence. St. Louis, USA: Auditec;1997.
  25. Musiek FE. Frequency (pitch) and duration pattern tests. J Am Acad Audiol 1994;5:265-8.
  26. Wilson RH, Moncrieff DW, Townsend EA, Pillion AL. Development of a 500-Hz masking-level difference protocol for clinic use. J Am Acad Audiol 2003;14:1-8. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.14.1.2
  27. Nogueira JCR, Mendonca MC. Assessment of hearing in a municipal public school student population. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2011;77:716-20. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942011000600007
  28. de Carvalho NG, Novelli CVL, Colella-Santos MF. Evaluation of speech in noise abilities in school children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017;99:66-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.05.019
  29. Moore DR, Cowan JA, Riley A, Edmondson-Jones AM, Ferguson MA. Development of auditory processing in 6- to 11-yr-old children. Ear Hear 2011;32:269-85. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e318201c468
  30. Bartz DW, Laux CN, Peruch CV, Ferreira MIDC, Machado MS, Ribas LP. Relationship between masking level difference test and acoustic reflex findings in children with phonological disorder. Rev CEFAC 2015;17:1499-508. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-021620151753515