Nonmodularity of the Central Auditory Nervous System

Implications for (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder

¹ University of Connecticut, Storrs
² University of South Dakota, Vermillion
³ Washington State University, Pullman

frank.musiek{at}uconn.edu

This response to A. T. Cacace and D. J. McFarland (2005) identifies points of agreement and disagreement regarding the concept of modularity in the diagnosis of (central) auditory processing disorder [(C)APD]. We concur that the evaluation of (C)APD must take into consideration the influence of higher order global or pansensory issues on performance on tests of central auditory function. To accomplish this goal, multidisciplinary (e.g., multimodal) testing is an integral part of differential diagnosis of (C)APD. We also agree that the efficiency of diagnostic tests of (C)APD should not be evaluated by imprecise criteria [e.g., "presumed" or "suspected" (C)APD], which do not provide accurate measures of the true sensitivity and specificity of these tests. Our conceptualization and recommendations for clinical practice in this area diverge, however, from that of Cacace and McFarland in a number of pivotal ways. Based on the current limitations of multimodal assessment relative to issues related to scope of practice and test efficiency, as well as the accumulated basic science and clinical literature that demonstrates the nonmodularity and interactive organization of the brain, we recommend use of the sensitized test battery of the central auditory nervous system (CANS) in combination with multidisciplinary testing to differentially diagnose (C)APD and to guide treatment of the disorder. We assert that sensitivity and specificity measures derived from individuals with well-circumscribed lesions of the CANS provide an important guide to establishing the validity of central auditory diagnostic tests. We note that researchers in the area of auditory science and (C)APD must acknowledge the challenges of the clinical arena, and we encourage their continued help to develop diagnostic tools that are both efficient and practical for the differential diagnosis of (C)APD. We conclude that our approach, which combines multidisciplinary evaluation and specific tests of central auditory function that have demonstrated sensitivity and specificity for disorders of the CANS, allows us to identify (and thus rehabilitate) the auditory deficits present in individuals with (C)APD in its "purest" form. It also permits the identification and rehabilitation of auditory deficits in individuals who exhibit auditory perceptual problems that coexist with other processing problems, while ruling out those who perform poorly on auditory tests because of a global, supramodal problem involving cognition, attention, language, memory, or related skills.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. M. Johnstone Toward Evidence-Based Practice in the Auditory Processing Disorder Clinic Perspectives on Audiology, August 1, 2008; 4(1): 9 - 14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. DeBonis and D. Moncrieff Auditory Processing Disorders: An Update for Speech-Language Pathologists Am J Speech Lang Pathol, February 1, 2008; 17(1): 4 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Jutras, M. Loubert, J.-L. Dupuis, C. Marcoux, V. Dumont, and M. Baril Applicability of Central Auditory Processing Disorder Models Am J Audiol, December 1, 2007; 16(2): 100 - 106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]