|Year : 2013 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 98-103
Central auditory processing and audio-vocal psycholinguistic abilities in children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder
Asmaa Abdel-Hamid1, Rasha Safwat1, Omnia Raafat2, Hani Hamed3, AyaAllah Farouk4
1 Department of Phoniatric, Kasr El Aini Hospital, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
2 Department of Psychiatry, Kasr El Aini Hospital, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
3 Department of Psychiatry, Beni Suef University, Beni Suef, Egypt
4 Department of Neurophysiology, Kasr El Aini Hospital, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
|Date of Submission||22-Jul-2012|
|Date of Acceptance||30-Aug-2012|
|Date of Web Publication||2-Jun-2014|
MD, Department of Psychiatry, Kasr El Aini Hospital, Cairo University, 9 Saied Zo El-Fakar Street, Manial El-Roda, Cairo
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Central auditory processing disorders and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) have become popular diagnostic entities for school-age children. P300 (P3) event-related potential (ERP) putatively reflects central auditory dysfunctions associated with ADHD.
Participants and methods
Forty children with a diagnosis of ADHD according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. and 39 normal children were included in the study and were subjected to P300 ERP, audio-vocal items of Illinois test of psycholinguistic abilities.
This study found a significant difference in P300 latency, amplitude, and most of the audio-vocal subtests between the patients and the controls. This difference was obvious in older children for the Illinois test, but was not observed in P300 results.
There was a CAPD in ADHD children as indicated by decreased amplitude of P300 and prolonged latency in such children.
Keywords: attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, auditory P300, psycholinguistic abilities
|How to cite this article:|
Abdel-Hamid A, Safwat R, Raafat O, Hamed H, Farouk A. Central auditory processing and audio-vocal psycholinguistic abilities in children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Egypt J Psychiatr 2013;34:98-103
|How to cite this URL:|
Abdel-Hamid A, Safwat R, Raafat O, Hamed H, Farouk A. Central auditory processing and audio-vocal psycholinguistic abilities in children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Egypt J Psychiatr [serial online] 2013 [cited 2022 Aug 18];34:98-103. Available from: http://new.ejpsy.eg.net/text.asp?2013/34/2/98/133680
Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects about 3–5% of children. The main symptoms of ADHD are inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsive behavior (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Auditory processing disorder (APD) may be broadly defined as a deficit in the processing of information that is specific to the auditory modality. It may be associated with difficulties in listening, speech understanding, language development, and learning. In its pure form, however, it is conceptualized as a deficit in the processing of auditory input (Children Jerger and Musiek, 2000).
Central auditory processing disorders (CAPD) and ADHD have become popular diagnostic entities for school-age children. Indeed, there are many behaviors that children with APD and ADHD have in common (Schochat et al., 2002).
Children with ADHD are generally described to have difficulties ignoring irrelevant information, being easily distracted by other stimuli. Therefore, a selective attention deficit may be presumed in these children. Recently, electrophysiologic assessment of auditory selective attention has become possible because of the advent of event-related potential (ERP) studies (Booth et al., 2005).
P300 is the most used auditory ERP. This potential appears around 300 ms and requires attention, auditory discrimination, and memory for its generation. It may provide a general index of cognitive processes, and an abnormally small or delayed P300 probably indicates some cognitive abnormality. Latency is a much more reliable indicator than amplitude, as latency is difficult to alter with attention. Long latency potentials such as the P300 are useful in studying cognitive and attentional functions (Kahn et al., 2004).
Stimulants appear to be a useful treatment for the symptoms of both ADHD and APD, and APD tests might represent a useful measure of ADHD symptomatology and a response to stimulants (Tillery et al., 2000).
| Introduction|| |
Hypothesis and aim
Detection of central auditory processing (higher auditory functioning) as measured by P300 in ADHD children.
Determine the role of stimulants in central auditory processing and P300 in ADHD children for a better understanding of the nature of the deficit in these children.
| Participants and methods|| |
Forty 6–10-year-old patients of both sexes (32 boys and eight girls) were selected from the Phoniatric Unit in Kasr Al Aini Hospital. Parents reported poor academic achievement and hyperactivity in these children. The study was carried out from March 2010 to January 2011. Twenty-one children were receiving treatment with stimulants (methylphenidate 10–30 mg/day) and the other 19 children were not receiving any medication.
Thirty-nine normal control children (30 boys and nine girls) were included in the study; they were recruited from the pediatric ear, nose, and throat clinic because of acute infections, and fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with no history of any psychiatric disorder.
Informed written consent was obtained from the children and their parents, with a full explanation of the steps of the study.
Patient selection criteria
- Inclusion criteria
- Average and below average IQ.
- Exclusion criteria
- No history of delayed language development.
- No history of hearing or neurological disorders.
All the patients were referred to a consultant child psychiatrist in The Center of Social and Preventive Medicine (Abou El Reesh Hospital) for the following:
General and neurological examination.Psychometric assessment:
- Psychiatric assessment: Semistructured psychiatric interview with the child and his/her parents for history taking including personal, prenatal, natal, and postnatal, developmental history, history of childhood illness, and social behavior of the child. A mental status examination was also carried out to confirm that the patients had the diagnosis of ADHD according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV) diagnostic criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
- The Stanford Binet Intelligence Test is a standardized test that assesses IQ and cognitive abilities in children and adults. This was done to exclude borderline IQ and mental retardation (Terman and Merrill, 1960).
- Conners’ Parent Rating Scale-Revised, long version (CPRS-R: L), was used to assess the severity of symptoms as reported by parents. This form includes 80 items grouped into different subscales. The CPRS-R: L in the Arabic language was developed by translation and back translation with the permission of the original author (Conners, 2001).
After confirmation of the psychiatric assessment and diagnosis, patients and control children were sent to the Phoniatric Clinic and subjected to the following:
The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) Arabic edition (2–10 years) (El-Sadi et al., 1998). In this study, only the audio-vocal items are studied, which include auditory reception, auditory association, verbal expression, grammatical closure, auditory sequential memory, auditory closure, and sound blending (Appendix 1). [Additional file 1]
- Ear, nose, and throat examination, and language assessment to exclude language delay.
Then the patients (medicated and nonmedicated) and control children were sent to the neurophysiology department for the assessment of ERP (P300): A double-blind study was carried out as the clinician in the Neurophysiology Department was not aware of whether or not the patients were taking methylphenidate. The medicated children received a dose of 10 mg of methylphenidate 60 min before P300. P300 was determined using head phone TDH 39. An odd-ball paradigm was used, where the participant was instructed to react to occurrences of a tone (target) presented during 20% of trials and to ignore a frequent tone present on other trials. P300 responses were obtained in response to the target stimuli. P300 amplitude is the difference in microvolt between the point of maximum amplitude of the designated peak and the stimulus baseline. P300 latency was measured from the time of stimulus onset to the point of maximum amplitude of the chosen peak.
Data are represented as mean±SD. Data of the patients and the controls were compared using an independent t-test. According to Conners’ T-subscales, patient data were divided into three groups: group 1 (T⩽65); group 2 (T=66–70); and group 3 (T>70), where the number, validity, and cumulative percent were determined. The Pearson correlation coefficient test was used to correlate patients’ Conner T-subscales with patients’ P300 and Illinois subsets. Two-tailed significant values were considered when P value was less than 0.05. Data were analyzed using SPSS for windows, version 11 (IBM, Chicago, Illinois, USA) (Barry et al., 2003).
The mean chronological age of the patient group was 8.1±1.64 years and the mean chronological age of the control group was 8.23±1.38 years (P=0.72). The patient group included 32 (80%) boys and 8 (20%) girls and the control group included 30 (77%) boys and 9 (23%) girls, with a nonsignificant difference (P=0.69).
There was a statistically significant difference between ADHD children and the controls in P300 amplitude and latency (P⩽0.001 and 0.002, respectively) [Table 1].
| Results|| |
There were statistically significant differences in auditory reception (P=0.006), auditory association, auditory sequential memory, sound blending, and auditory closure (P⩽0.001) between the cases and the controls [Table 2].
|Table 1: P300 in children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorders and controls|
Click here to view
There was a negative significant correlation between P300 latency and the auditory sequential memory (P=0.013) [Table 3].
The following are Conners’ subscales: (A) Oppositional, (B) Cognitive Problems/Inattention, (C) Hyperactivity, (D) Anxious-Shy, (H) ADHD Index, (E) Perfectionism, (F) Social Problems, (G) Psychosomatic, (I) Conners’ Global Index Restless-Impulsive, (J) Conners’ Global Index Emotional lability, (K) Conners’ Global Index Total, (L) DSM-IV Symptoms inattentive, (M) DSM-IV Symptoms Hyperactive-Impulsive, and (N) DSM-IV Symptoms Total.
There was a positive correlation between inattention and hyperactivity with P300 latency. Also, there was a negative correlation between Conners’ Global Index Restless-Impulsive (I) and both auditory reception and auditory sequential memory [Table 4].
|Table 2: Performance of children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorders and controls on Illinois subtests|
Click here to view
There were highly significant differences in auditory reception, auditory association, verbal expression, grammatic closure, auditory sequential memory, and sound blending. This indicates that older children had more impairment than younger children [Table 5].
|Table 4: Correlation between Connors’ subscales, P300, and Illinois subtest|
Click here to view
There was a longer P300 latency in nonmedicated children than the medicated children, with a significant difference (P<0.001) [Table 6].
|Table 5: Age differences among the studied patients in the P300 and Illinois subtests|
Click here to view
|Table 6: Effect of medication (methylphenidate) on P300 and Illinois subtsets in the patient group (n=40)|
Click here to view
We carried out this study to detect higher auditory function disorder (CAPD) in ADHD children through P300 and the Illinois subtest. ERPs reflect their perceived importance as possibly providing clues to ADHD’s underlying pathophysiology; brain-related processes reflecting deficits in inhibitory control have received particular attention in ADHD research (Hinshaw, 2003; Abdel Hamid et al., 2010). P300 amplitude is believed to provide a psychophysiological signature of these deficits (Barry et al., 2003).
The results indicated longer latency and smaller amplitude in ADHD children as compared with their controls [Table 1]. Our findings might indicate that the children with ADHD showed signs of late-stage auditory perceptual processing. In agreement with our findings, Satterfield et al. (1994) have suggested the existence of abnormal sensory and cognitive information processing in patients with ADHD. They have reported lower amplitudes of the P300 wave, which is related to problems with signal recognition and transduction. A possible explanation was provided by Hoeksma et al. (2006), who reported that an abnormally small P300 amplitude is an indication of abnormal functioning of neuronal generators (temporal, parietal, and frontal areas), as these neuronal generators need to be intact for the P300 to attain normal levels. Another explanation was provided by Barry et al. (2003), who found that the P300 component is partly associated with frontal function, and the most accepted interpretation is that it relates to the involvement of executive and attentional resources. In agreement with our findings, a small P300 amplitude in ADHD children is in agreement with the findings of Van der Stelt et al. (2001), but others have reported that they are equivalent (Rothenberger et al., 2000).
In the present study, the delayed latency might indicate that more time was required to complete stimulus evaluation in the auditory modality at the higher processing level. Jonkman et al. (1997) reported significantly longer latencies in ADHD children, which is in agreement with our results.
In terms of the audio-vocal subtests of Illinois, there was a highly significant difference between cases and controls in the studied items, except in verbal expression and grammatical closure [Table 2].
In the present study, auditory reception was impaired in the ADHD=children. We observed that the children did not recognize or identify sounds in their environment, did not have listening attitude, were not able to attach meaning to words, and were also not able to follow consecutive speech. This can be attributed to defective attention in these children.
Auditory association was also significantly impaired in ADHD children in comparison with the controls. It was found that the children had difficulty holding more than one concept in mind and consider the relation between them. This finding can be attributed to the short-term memory defects in these children. Barkley (2003) has reported that children with ADHD cannot hold a concept as well as the semantic representation of the auditory stimulus applied to them and recall other concepts related to it.
Auditory sequential memory was impaired in children with ADHD in comparison with the controls. These results can be attributed to memory deficit in ADHD children. Auditory sequential memory is considered a complex item of Illinois test that is a processing-based problem; thus, its defect might indicate CAPD. Several studies have reported memory deficiencies in children diagnosed with attention problems (Brocki et al., 2008; Shaheen et al., 2011). Martinussen et al. (1987) have found that working memory, both verbal and spatial, was impaired in ADHD children. Gomarus et al. (2009) have reported that the Central Executive of working memory was impaired in ADHD children.
Auditory closure was also defective in ADHD children compared with the control group. In the current study, it was observed that the child had to listen hard sometimes to be aware that part of the word is missing. Yet for some children, it was observed that the word could be unrecognizably changed. Auditory closure and sound blending defects are because of the presence of defects in the phonological storage and recall of the articulatory loop of words, especially the newly acquired ones (Shaheen et al., 2011). As such, phonological short-term memory is integrally involved in the development and acquisition of academic skills. Shibasaki and Miyazaki (1992) have found that a defect in these abilities may also be attributed to defective central auditory processing because of the concern that ADHD may be frequently comorbid with, or even indistinguishable from, CAPD, which may impact on the child’s educational achievements.
Grammatic closure and verbal expression values showed a nonsignificant difference between patients and controls. This can be explained by the selection of the patients; their main complaint was poor academic achievement, with no language problem.
In the present study, there was also positive correlation between P300 latency and inattention and hyperactivity subscales of Conners’ Parents Rating Scale. This can be attributed to the fact that the child cannot sit still as there is increased distractibility in children with ADHD; thus, the stimulus takes a longer time to be processed. There was a negative correlation of auditory sequential memory and P300 latency, which can be attributed to the longer time required for the stimulus to be processed (Booth et al., 2005).
In terms of the age difference in the results of this study [Table 5], it was found that there was no difference in P300 results in the two age groups, despite the presence of a highly significant difference in the results of Illinois tests. This result was not in agreement with the findings of Shibasaki and Miyazaki (1992) of a decrease in latency and an increase in amplitude with age. In our study, a significant difference between the two age groups in the Illinois subtest scores with considerably impaired abilities in older children might reflect their poor academic achievement.
The results of the present study on the effect of medication on amplitude and latency indicated that nonmedicated ADHD children had longer P300 latencies than children medicated with methylphenidate. Some studies have reported an increase of the P300 amplitude with stimulant medication in ADHD (Seifert et al., 2003). However, there is still controversy in terms of their effect on the P300 latency. However, Schochat et al. (2002) have pointed that methylphenidate did not have a significant effect on any of the central auditory processing measures, although it was found that their performance improved significantly on the attention/impulsivity test. It should be noted that an improvement in the child’s attentive ability facilitates the evaluation of AP, with less stress on the child.
| Discussion|| |
There was a CAPD in children with ADHD (as indicated by Illinois subtests) and higher auditory central cognitive function (indicated by decreased amplitude of P300 and prolonged latency in such children).
Audio-vocal abilities are more defective in older children (8–10 years) than in younger children.
Children with ADHD should be assessed for CAPD and a rehabilitation program for their deficits should be implemented.
Stimulants may decrease the P300 latency and hence improve the attentive ability and auditory process.
| Conclusion and recommendations|| |
| References|| |
|1.||Abdel Hamid A, Abdel Raouf M, Shohdi S, Shahin E 2010 Neurophysiological study of higher auditory cortical function in children having specific language impairment M.D. Thesis, Cairo University |
|2.|| Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 19944th ed. Washington American Psychiatric Association |
|3.||Barkley RA. Issues in the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children. Brain Dev. 2003;25:77–83 |
|4.||Barry RJ, Johnstone SJ, Clarke AR. A review of electrophysiology in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: II. Event-related potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003;114:184–198 |
|5.||Booth JR, Burman DD, Meyer JR, Lei Z, Trommer BL, Davenport ND, et al. Larger deficits in brain networks for response inhibition than for visual selective attention in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005;46:94–111 |
|6.||Brocki KC, Randall KD, Bohlin G, Kerns KA. Working memory in school-aged children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder combined type: are deficits modality specific and are they independent of impaired inhibitory control? J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2008;30:749–759 |
|7.||Cary NC Statistical package for social studies (SPSS). 2002 USA SAS Institute |
|8.||Children Jerger J, Musiek F. Report of the consensus conference on the diagnosis of auditory processing disorders in school-aged. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11:467–474 |
|9.||Conners CK Conners’ Rating Scales – revised technical manual. 2001 North Tonawanda, NY Multi-Health Systems |
|10.||El-Sadi S, Elshobary A, Hegazi M, Refai N, Azzam A, Wahdan A 1998 Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) and its correlative aspects to language and mentality. International Annual Ain-Shams Medical Congress: the impact of medical sciences on planning of modern Egypt16-19 March 1998. 21, Cairo, Egypt |
|11.||Gomarus HK, Wijers AA, Minderaa RB, Althaus M. ERP correlates of selective attention and working memory capacities in children with ADHD and/or PDD-NOS. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120:60–72 |
|12.||Hinshaw SP. Impulsivity, emotion regulation and developmental psychopathology: specificity versus generality of linkages. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;1008:149–159 |
|13.||Hoeksma MR, Kemner C, Kenemans JL, Van Engeland H. Abnormal selective attention normalizes P3 amplitudes in PDD. J Autism Dev Disord. 2006;36:643–654 |
|14.||Jonkman LM, Kemner C, Verbaten MN, Koelega HS, Camfferman G, Gaag R, et al. Event-related potentials and performance of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: children and normal controls in auditory and visual selective attention tasks. Biol Psychiatry. 1997;41:595–611 |
|15.||Kahn I, Davachi L, Wagner AD. Functional-neuroanatomic correlates of recollection: implications for models of recognition memory. J Neurosci. 2004;24:4172–4180 |
|16.||Martinussen R, Hayden J, Hogg-Johnson S, Tannock R. A meta-analysis of working memory impairments in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1987;44:377–384 |
|17.||Rothenberger A, Banaschewski T, Heinrich H, Moll GH, Schmidt MH, Van't Klooster B. Comorbidity in ADHD-children: effects of coexisting conduct disorder or tic disorder on event-related brain potentials in an auditory selective-attention task. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2000;250:101–110 |
|18.||Satterfield JH, Schell AM, Nicholas T. Preferential neural processing of attended stimuli in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and normal boys. Psychophysiology. 1994;31:1–10 |
|19.||Schochat E, Scheuer CI, Andrade ER. ABR and auditory P300 findings in children with ADHD. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2002;60(3-B):742–747 |
|20.||Seifert J, Scheuerpflug P, Zillessen KE, Fallgatter A, Warnke A. Electrophysiological investigation of the effectiveness of methylphenidate in children with and without ADHD. J Neural Transm. 2003;110:821–829 |
|21.||Shaheen EA, Shohdy SS, Abd Al Raouf M, Mohamed El Abd S, Abd Elhamid A. Relation between language, audio-vocal psycholinguistic abilities and P300 in children having specific language impairment. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;75:1117–1122 |
|22.||Shibasaki H, Miyazaki M. Event-related potential studies in infants and children. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;9:408–418 |
|23.||Terman LM, Merrill MA Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale; manual for the third revision form L-M. 1960 Boston Houghton Mifflin |
|24.||Tillery KL, Katz J, Keller WD. Effects of methylphenidate (Ritalin) on auditory performance in children with attention and auditory processing disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43:893–901 |
|25.||Van der Stelt O, Van der Molen M, Boudewijn Gunning W, Kok A. Neuroelectrical signs of selective attention to color in boys with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: preliminary results of this study were presented at the 39th Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR), Granada, Spain, 6–10 October 1999. Cogn Brain Res. 2001;12:245–264 |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]