Auditory evoked potentials: Predicting speech therapy outcomes in children with phonological disorders

13Citations
Citations of this article
61Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether neurophysiologic responses (auditory evoked potentials) differ between typically developed children and children with phonological disorders and whether these responses are modified in children with phonological disorders after speech therapy. METHODS: The participants included 24 typically developing children (Control Group, mean age: eight years and ten months) and 23 children clinically diagnosed with phonological disorders (Study Group, mean age: eight years and eleven months). Additionally, 12 study group children were enrolled in speech therapy (Study Group 1), and 11 were not enrolled in speech therapy (Study Group 2). The subjects were submitted to the following procedures: conventional audiological, auditory brainstem response, auditory middle-latency response, and P300 assessments. All participants presented with normal hearing thresholds. The study group 1 subjects were reassessed after 12 speech therapy sessions, and the study group 2 subjects were reassessed 3 months after the initial assessment. Electrophysiological results were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Latency differences were observed between the groups (the control and study groups) regarding the auditory brainstem response and the P300 tests. Additionally, the P300 responses improved in the study group 1 children after speech therapy. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that children with phonological disorders have impaired auditory brainstem and cortical region pathways that may benefit from speech therapy. © 2014 CLINICS.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Leite, R. A., Wertzner, H. F., Gonçalves, I. C., Magliaro, F. C. L., & Matas, C. G. (2014). Auditory evoked potentials: Predicting speech therapy outcomes in children with phonological disorders. Clinics, 69(3), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2014(03)12

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free