Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2014 · 41 citations · 0 references
Health ProfessionsAudiologyOtolaryngologyClinical AudiologyDiagnostic AudiologyHearing ScienceAudiologic EvaluationAuditory Processing DisordersHearing ImpairmentHearing LossSpeech Perception In NoiseSpeech Sound DisordersDiagnostic Audiological EvaluationDifferential Diagnostic CriteriaSpeech In Noise DifficultySpeech-in-noise DeficitsSystematic Description
Central auditory processing disorder is a controversial clinical entity with ambiguous definitions, debated by professional societies and others. The paper examines central auditory processing and speech‑recognition‑in‑noise disorders using the Sydenham‑Guttentag nosographic criteria. The authors review Sydenham and Guttentag’s nosographic criteria, presenting them as a framework for conceptualizing audiology disorders.
The area of (central) auditory processing disorder [(C)APD] is highly controversial. This controversy is fueled in part by multiple ambiguous descriptions of this condition. The American Speech-Language and Hearing Association and the American Academy of Audiology state that (C)APD is a clinical entity, but other sources say that this is questionable. The clinical entity is a concept used to define the nature of a disorder in order to facilitate diagnosis and intervention. Nosography is the study of the systematic description of diseases and disorders. The work in the field of nosography by physicians Thomas Sydenham and Otto Guttentag is reviewed.The Sydenham-Guttentag criteria for the clinical entity are presented as a framework for the conceptualization of disorders in the field of audiology. This paper discusses central auditory processing and speech recognition-in-noise disorders in reference to these criteria.