Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(08): 675-684
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16052
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

A Nonsense Consonant-Vowel-Consonant Word Test to Assess Auditory Processing

Mariah Nicole Cheyney
*   Northern Illinois University, Sycamore, IL
,
Deborah W. Moncrieff
†   University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Dichotic listening (DL), or how the two ears work together as a team, is often used in the assessment of auditory processing disorders in both children and adults. Currently, the battery of dichotic tests includes stimuli containing words, digits, and nonsense consonant–vowel syllables. Single-syllable nonsense words are of particular use in assessing processing abilities because they can evaluate auditory processing without a listener’s dependence on linguistic knowledge. Therefore, nonsense words may assess auditory processes independently of previous vocabulary knowledge.

Purpose:

This study is designed to assess the clinical applicability and face validity of a nonsense word DL test in a young adult population.

Research Design:

This study included an experimental design to investigate the performance of young adult listeners on a Dichotic Nonsense Word (DNW) test spoken by a male and female speaker. The results were compared with one study that investigated young adult listener’s performance on dichotic tests of English words.

Study Sample:

A total of 100 young adult participants were recruited from the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh to participate in the study. The participants ranged in age from 20 to 30, with an average age of 23, and all participants had normal hearing.

Data Collection and Analysis:

DL performance was measured in all participants using the Dichotic Words Test (DWT) and the newly developed DNW test. Kolmogorov–Smirnoff tests of normality were used to assess distribution of right- and left-ear scores. Criterion cutoff scores were determined for the percent correct scores in the nondominant ear and dominant ear and for ear advantage.

Results:

Scores were significantly different between the two tests in the right ear, Z = −8.258, p < 0.001, and in the left ear, Z = −8.471, p < 0.001. Scores within each test were higher for the right ear than for the left ear, and scores for both ears were significantly lower on the DNW test than for the DWT. Ear advantage scores from the DNW test were significantly larger than those obtained from the DWT. The low and high 95% criterion cutoff ranges for the DNW test were considerably wider than the 95% criterion cutoff ranges for the DWT.

Conclusions:

Results indicate that the new DNW test may be a useful clinical tool within a test battery for evaluating auditory processing skills independent of vocabulary knowledge.

Key Words

adult - auditory perception - diagnosis - dichotic listening tests/methods - dichotic listening tests/utilization - differential - humans - MeSH terms
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Bellis TJ. 2002; Developing deficit-specific intervention plans for individuals with auditory processing disorders. Semin Hear 23: 287-295
    Thieme ConnectSearch in Google Scholar
  • Boothroyd A, Nittrouer S. 1988; Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 84 (01) 101-114
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Bryden MP, Munhall K, Allard F. 1983; Attentional biases and the right-ear effect in dichotic listening. Brain Lang 18 (02) 236-248
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Cherry EC. 1953; Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and two ears. J Acoust Soc Am 25: 975-979
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • DeBonis DA, Moncrieff D. 2008; Auditory processing disorders: an update for speech-language pathologists. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 17 (01) 4-18
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Emanuel DC, Ficca KN, Korczak P. 2011; Survey of the diagnosis and management of auditory processing disorder. Am J Audiol 20 (01) 48-60
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Findlen UM, Roup CM. 2011; Dichotic speech recognition using CVC word and nonsense CVC syllable stimuli. J Am Acad Audiol 22 (01) 13-22
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Haukoos JS, Lewis RJ. 2005; Advanced statistics: bootstrapping confidence intervals for statistics with “difficult” distributions. Acad Emerg Med 12 (04) 360-365
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Henderson AR. 2005; The bootstrap: a technique for data-driven statistics. Using computer-intensive analyses to explore experimental data. Clin Chim Acta 359 1-2 1-26
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Hiscock M, Cole LC, Benthall JG, Carlson VL, Ricketts JM. 2000; Toward solving the inferential problem in laterality research: effects of increased reliability on the validity of the dichotic listening right-ear advantage. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 6 (05) 539-547
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Hiscock M, Inch R, Jacek C, Hiscock-Kalil C, Kalil KM. 1994; Is there a sex difference in human laterality? I. An exhaustive survey of auditory laterality studies from six neuropsychology journals. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 16 (03) 423-435
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Hiscock M, Inch R, Kinsbourne M. 1999; Allocation of attention in dichotic listening: differential effects on the detection and localization of signals. Neuropsychology 13 (03) 404-414
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Hiscock M, Kinsbourne M. 2011; Attention and the right-ear advantage: what is the connection?. Brain Cogn 76 (02) 263-275
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Hugdahl K, Andersson L. 1986; The “forced-attention paradigm” in dichotic listening to CV-syllables: a comparison between adults and children. Cortex 22 (03) 417-432
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Hugdahl K, Carlsson G, Eichele T. 2001; Age effects in dichotic listening to consonant-vowel syllables: interactions with attention. Dev Neuropsychol 20 (01) 445-457
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Keith RW, Katbamna B, Tawfik S, Smolak LH. 1987; The effect of linguistic background on staggered spondaic word and dichotic consonant vowel scores. Br J Audiol 21 (01) 21-26
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Kimura D. 1961; Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. Can J Psychol 15: 166-171
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • Kimura D. 1967; Functional asymmetry of the brain in dichotic listening. Cortex 3: 163-178
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • Moncrieff D. 2015; Age- and gender-specific normative information from children assessed with a dichotic words test. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (07) 632-644
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Moncrieff D, Keith W, Abramson M, Swann A. 2016; Diagnosis of amblyaudia in children referred for auditory processing assessment. Int J Audiol 55 (06) 333-345
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Moncrieff DW. 2006; Identification of binaural integration deficits in children with the competing words subtest: standard score versus interaural asymmetry. Int J Audiol 45 (04) 200-207 , discussion 207–210
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Moncrieff DW. 2011; Dichotic listening in children: age-related changes in direction and magnitude of ear advantage. Brain Cogn 76 (02) 316-322
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Moncrieff DW, Musiek FE. 2002; Interaural asymmetries revealed by dichotic listening tests in normal and dyslexic children. J Am Acad Audiol 13 (08) 428-437
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Moncrieff DW, Wilson RH. 2009; Recognition of randomly presented one-, two-, and three-pair dichotic digits by children and young adults. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (01) 58-70
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Mullennix JW, Pisoni DB, Martin CS. 1989; Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 85 (01) 365-378
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Musiek FE, Shinn J, Hare C. 2002; Plasticity, auditory training, and auditory processing disorders. Semin Hear 23: 263-275
    Thieme ConnectSearch in Google Scholar
  • Neijenhuis K, Snik A, Priester G, van Kordenoordt S, van den Broek P. 2002; Age effects and normative data on a Dutch test battery for auditory processing disorders. Int J Audiol 41 (06) 334-346
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Nittrouer S, Boothroyd A. 1990; Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. J Acoust Soc Am 87 (06) 2705-2715
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Noffsinger D, Martinez CD, Andrews M. 1996; Dichotic listening to speech: VA-CD data from elderly subjects. J Am Acad Audiol 7 (01) 49-56
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Noffsinger D, Martinez CD, Wilson RH. 1994; Dichotic listening to speech: background and preliminary data for digits, sentences, and nonsense syllables. J Am Acad Audiol 5 (04) 248-254
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Obrzut JE, Boliek CA, Obrzut A. 1986; The effect of stimulus type and directed attention on dichotic listening with children. J Exp Child Psychol 41 (01) 198-209
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Rimol LM, Eichele T, Hugdahl K. 2006; The effect of voice-onset-time on dichotic listening with consonant-vowel syllables. Neuropsychologia 44 (02) 191-196
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Roup CM, Wiley TL, Wilson RH. 2006; Dichotic word recognition in young and older adults. J Am Acad Audiol 17 (04) 230-240 , quiz 297–298
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • Techentin C, Voyer D. 2011; Word frequency, familiarity, and laterality effects in a dichotic listening task. Laterality: asymmetries of body. Brain Cogn 16: 313-332
    Search in Google Scholar
  • Yost WA. 2013. Fundamentals of Hearing: An Introduction. Boston, MA: Brill;
    Search in Google Scholar