Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Tatiane Eisencraft
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Medicina (FM/SBD) |
| Defense date: | 2007-10-30 |
| Examining board members: |
Eliane Schochat;
Renata Mota Mamede de Carvallo;
Iêda Chaves Pacheco Russo
|
| Advisor: | Eliane Schochat |
| Abstract | |
INTRODUCTION: The use of electrophysiological tests associated to behavioral evaluation has become a frequent practice in the audiology field enabling a more precise diagnosis and monitoring of the Auditory Processing Disorder. AIM: the aim of this study was to verify the N1-P2-N2 complex characteristics (latency and amplitude) in children with Auditory Processing Disorder, and also to verify the evolution of such characteristics after Auditory Training. MÉTHODS: 30 individuals with Auditory Processing Disorder and 22 individuals without Auditory Processing Disorder were selected, ranging in age from eight to 16 years old, composing respectively the Study Group (SG) and the Control Group (CG). All individuals underwent an initial evaluation of the Auditory Processing and of the N1-P2-N2 complex Long Latency Electrophysiological Potential (1st evaluation). The SG was submitted to an auditory training program in acoustic booth during 8 sessions and was reevaluated later by both behavioral and electrophysiological tests (2nd evaluation). The CG was not submitted to an auditory training program, and was reevaluated (2nd evaluation) three months after the initial evaluation. RESULTS: There was a significant statistical difference in all behavioral tests used in the Auditory Processing Evaluation when comparing the SG and the CG in the 1st evaluation, and in the situations pre and post auditory training in the SG. Concerning the N1-P2-N2 complex, there was a significant statistical difference for the latency of wave N1 and the amplitude of wave P2 in the 1st evaluation when comparing the SG and the CG. In the pre and post auditory training situations, there was a significant statistical difference for the latency of wave P2 and the amplitude of waves N1 and P2. In the CG there was no significant difference between the initial and the 2nd evaluation three months later. CONCLUSIONS: The electrophysiological measures of the N1-P2-N2 complex seem to be a good instrument for assisting the diagnosis and the therapy monitoring of children with Auditory Processing Disorder, once these children presented differences in the latency and amplitude measures of such potential after auditory training. (AU) | |