What Can We Learn about Auditory Processing from Adult Hearing Questionnaires?
What Can We Learn about Auditory Processing from Adult Hearing Questionnaires?
复制标题
DOI：
10.3766/jaaa.15009
复制
发表时间：
2015-11-01
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Spyridakou, Chrysa
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bamiou, Doris-Eva;Iliadou, Vasiliki Vivian;Spyridakou, Chrysa
背景资料：目的：（1）评估言语、空间和听觉质量量表（SSQ）、（改良）阿姆斯特丹听觉障碍量表（mAIAD）和听觉过敏问卷（HYP）在听力正常的成年听力障碍患者中的有效性。(2)为了检查哪些个人问卷项目给临床参与者的听觉处理障碍（APD）的评分较差研究设计：前瞻性相关分析study.Study样本：临床参与者（N = 58），因为听力障碍的听力阈值正常的听力学/耳，鼻，喉或视听前庭医学诊所的存在下进行评估。正常对照参与者（N = 30）。数据收集和分析：在进行听觉处理（AP）测试之前，在听力图和耳蜗功能正常的情况下，将mAIAD、HYP和SSQ施用于因听力主诉而被转诊进行AP评估的非神经系统成年人的临床人群，以及施用于年龄匹配的正常听力对照的样本。至少一只耳朵和至少两次AP测试结果异常的临床受试者（并且这些测试中至少有一项是非语言测试）被归类为临床APD（N = 39），其余的被归类为临床APD（N = 39）。（其中16例有单一测试异常）为临床非APD（N = 19）。SSQ与mAIAD、HYP呈高度相关，临床组与正常对照组相关性相似。临床APD组的所有问卷总分和子评分（mAIAD的声音区分除外）均显著差于正常组，而问卷总分和大多数子评分表明临床非APD亚组的听力困难大于正常亚组。总体而言，在所有问卷调查中，临床非APD组的评分往往优于APD组。最差耳间隙噪声阈值与SSQ、mAIAD和HYP之间的相关性很强;牙牙学语和左耳两分指测试得分之间的相关性很强到中等（p < 0.01）;其余AP测试之间的相关性很弱到中等（除了频率模式测试不相关）。在所有三份问卷中得分最低的项目都涉及噪音中的语音问题。这与文献中报道的听力受损参与者得分最低的项目相似。临床组得分最低的项目还包括质量方面的听力问题的SSQ，这最有可能涉及到认知方面的听力，如能够忽略其他声音和听力的努力。结论：听力问卷调查可能有助于评估症状的成人APD。成人APD患者的听力困难和听力需求在一定程度上与听障者的听力困难和听力需求有重叠，但也存在显著差异。噪声间隙和持续时间模式（但不是频率模式）测试与问卷评分的相关性表明，时间处理缺陷可能在临床表现中发挥重要作用。
Background: Questionnaires addressing auditory disability may identify and quantify specific symptoms in adult patients with listening difficulties.Purpose: (1) To assess validity of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), the (Modified) Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability (mAIAD), and the Hyperacusis Questionnaire (HYP) in adult patients experiencing listening difficulties in the presence of a normal audiogram. (2) To examine which individual questionnaire items give the worse scores in clinical participants with an auditory processing disorder (APD).Research Design: A prospective correlational analysis study.Study Sample: Clinical participants (N = 58) referred for assessment because of listening difficulties in the presence of normal audiometric thresholds to audiology/ear, nose, and throat or audiovestibular medicine clinics. Normal control participants (N = 30).Data Collection and Analysis: The mAIAD, HYP, and the SSQ were administered to a clinical population of nonneurological adults who were referred for auditory processing (AP) assessment because of hearing complaints, in the presence of normal audiogram and cochlear function, and to a sample of age-matched normal-hearing controls, before the AP testing. Clinical participants with abnormal results in at least one ear and in at least two tests of AP (and at least one of these tests to be nonspeech) were classified as clinical APD (N = 39), and the remaining (16 of whom had a single test abnormality) as clinical non-APD (N = 19).Results: The SSQ Correlated strongly with the mAIAD and the HYP, and correlation was similar within the clinical group and the normal controls. All questionnaire total scores and subscores (except sound distinction of mAIAD) were significantly worse in the clinical APD versus the normal group, while questionnaire total scores and most subscores indicated greater listening difficulties for the clinical non-APD versus the normal subgroups. Overall, the clinical non-APD group tended to give better scores than the APD in all questionnaires administered. Correlation was strong for the worse-ear gaps-in-noise threshold with the SSQ, mAIAD, and HYP; strong to moderate for the speech in babble and left-ear dichotic digit test scores (at p < 0.01); and weak to moderate for the remaining AP tests except the frequency pattern test that did not correlate. The worse-scored items in all three questionnaires concerned speech-in-noise questions. This is similar to worse-scored items by hearing-impaired participants as reported in the literature. Worse-scored items of the clinical group also included quality aspects of listening questions from the SSQ, which most likely pertain to cognitive aspects of listening, such as ability to ignore other sounds and listening effort.Conclusions: Hearing questionnaires may help assess symptoms of adults with APD. The listening difficulties and needs of adults with APD to some extent overlap with those of hearing-impaired listeners, but there are significant differences. The correlation of the gaps-in-noise and duration pattern (but not frequency pattern) tests with the questionnaire scores indicates that temporal processing deficits may play an important role in clinical presentation.