Central Auditory Processing Disorders: Comparison of Two Articles - Essay Example

Name of Student Course Professor Date (1) Rationale/motivating circumstances that create such disagreements in the first place (e.g., historically) Cacace and McFarland argued that modality specificity should be used as a “unifying framework” (p.112) in the conceptualization and diagnosis of central auditory processing disorder or CAPD. They argued that there are varied “contentions and general lack of agreement” on various issues on the areas of CAPD from expert opinions which makes it not that reliable in its conceptualization and diagnosis. Thus, controlled experiments are needed to advance the growth of understanding the issue of CAPD. Musiek et al, on the other hand argued that for the “non-modularity of the central nervous system” (p. 129) which say for itself the importance of non-modality approach in the conceptualization and diagnosis of CAPD. (2) Conceptual frameworks of each group of authors Cacace and McFarland’s conceptual framework rely on the non-maturity of the area of CAPD in terms of knowledge development (p.113). They further framed that models of experimentation has not been validated; thus there is no reliable manner in which to conceptualize and diagnose CAPD. Musiek, et al, however, argued this conceptual framework of Cacace and McFarland by saying that they did not provide any references for the literature on auditory processing to support their claims in asserting the modality specificity approach for CAPD (p. 129). They argued that there are several proofs that there is an advance literature on the growth of knowledge on CAPD in the last few years which should not be ignored. This assertion is claimed to be supported by audiologists and hearing scientists (Musiek et al, p. 129). Cacace and McFarland asserted that there is scarcity of research literature derived from results of experimentation that would make it useful for the validity of conceptualization and diagnosis of CAPD. However, Musiek et al argued that there are several studies or controlled experimentation literature available already in peer reviewed journals revealing the “abnormal neurophysiological representation of both speech and non-speech stimuli” (p. 129) on adults and children with difficulties in listening and associated learning. These literatures of studies showed the clinical existence of CAPD. At the same time it underscored the usefulness of “electrophysiological and psychophysical tests” (p. 129) of the central auditory function which mostly evolved from the traditional experimentation of Neff and Kimura in 1961 (cited in Musiek, et al, p. 129). Cacace and McFarland framed that there is no existing “validated models” (p. 113) of treatment of CAPD. Available literature is not sufficient to supplement the knowledge for the intervention of CAPD. Musiek, et al (p. 129) confirmed that there are no studies that provide high levels of evidence such as “randomized controlled trials” (p. 129) but there are “solid evidence” (p.129) from literatures that targeted auditory training for children and adults resulted to “improved psychophysical performance, neurophysiological representation of acoustic stimuli, and listening and related function” (p. 129). Musiek et al (p. 130) agreed with Cacace and McFarland that single referencing from a particular literature might not be exhaustive enough discuss ACPD and there is a need for further research in order to expand the understanding of this area. However, the assertion of Cacace and McFarland that there is no sufficient evidence from the current base of knowledge to support the conceptualization and diagnosis of ACPD is not an acceptable claim given the “knowledge and clinical progress” it already reached at this point. Thus, unlike Cacace and McFarland, Musiek et al (p. 130) stressed the conceptual framework that the conceptualization of ACPD gives both scientific and clinical diagnostic tools. They espoused that CAPD is not an exclusive modality but a “primarily modality-specific perceptual dysfunction” (p.130) which is not due to hearing loss as espoused by Cacace and McFarland. Musiek et al (p. 131) also argued that there are other ways to determine issues of multimodality beyond what Cacace and McFarlan’s suggestion of varied stimulus. Multidisciplinary testing “within the context of interactive brain” (p. 131) combined with a “sensitized test battery of the central auditory nervous system” (p. 131) will accurately diagnoses, treat and manage CAPD. (3) Proposed methods for/against modularity in APD testing Cacace and McFarland (p. 114) identified multimodal testing such as dissociation and double dissociation designs as the two experimental approaches in demonstrating the modality specific nature of CAPD. Dissociation of performance on tasks in varied sensory modalities assumed the inference of distinct abilities in the evaluation of comparison between audio and visual presentation of tests. It addresses the problem of “discriminant validity” (p. 114). Further, using a multi modal approach is necessary to make ACPD an “exclusively modality-specific perceptual dysfunction”. Musiek et al (p. 130), on the other hand, supported the unimodal method cited in ASHA which stated that well documented literatures that include experiments and specificity dysfunctions of the central auditory nervous system is necessary in CAPD diagnosis. (4) Results or literature cited to support each view. Cacace and McFarland supported their approach of multimodal testing using dissociation and double dissociation designs by citing supporting literatures. They cited Teuber’s (p. 114) report that designs for double dissociation were extensively used in several literatures related to cognitive and neuropsychological areas. They also cited their own research in 1992 showing the presence of double dissociations for controlled experiments related to audio and pattern of visual recognition for people with lesions in their temporal lobe. In this study, one individual showed a normal memory of recognition for “visual color-pattern sequences” (p. 114) but showed an abnormal result for sequences related to audio frequency. Cacace and McFarland claimed that these results were evidenced enough that “visual and auditory pattern sequences” (p. 114) are receptive indices to two separate abilities. The 1969 case study from Jerger et al (Cacace and McFarland, p. 114) gave evidenced on the 25 years support of literature to modality specificity of CAPD when it showed that lesions in the temporal lobe contributed to impairment in the intelligence of speech, discriminate between intensity, discrimination in the temporal order of pitch and abilities for spatial localization. The 1998 study of Polster and Rose (Cacace and McFarland p. 115) revealed that auditory processing disorders have long been documented in literatures which demonstrated dissociation. Musiek et al (p. 130) basically cited the literature from the 2005 report of ASHA on the sensitivity of central auditory nervous system dysfunction for the diagnosis of CAPD. The report espouses a multidisciplinary approach to the conceptualization, diagnosis, treatment and management of CAPD. They have used related literatures from the 2005 study of Ross & Bellis in questioning the sufficiency of evidence on the utility of multi-modal analogs in the differential diagnosis of CAPD. (5) Your opinion and how might you reconcile to the two views (if possible). Reading through the arguments between these two set of authors on the issue of Central Auditory Process Disorder of CAPD made me realize that there is really no exact approach that would satisfy each segment although Musiek et al agreed on some points raised by Cacace and McFarlan. However, the debates between the two views should not become a deterrent to find the best way to conceptualize and diagnose ACPD. Instead, there arguments and related literatures should be used as a good backgrounder and material to further test the validity of their claims in order to create or determine the best approach to conceptualize and diagnose ACPD. It does not mean that one of the other views is not useful if one is to be delegated to certain position between the debating authors. Instead, one should use it to reconcile their differences and integrate it to the effective conceptualization and diagnosis of ACPD. This way, both of the information they gave will be useful to further the state of knowledge development on ACPD. Works Cited Cacace, Anthony T. and McFarland, Dennis J. “The Importance of Modality Specificity in Diagnosing Central Auditory Processing Disorder” American Journal of Audiology Vol. 14 (December 2005) 112-123. Musiek, Frank E., Bellis, Teri James and Chermak, Gail D. “Nonmodularity of the Central Auditory Nervous System: Implications for (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder” American Journal of Audiology Vol. 14 (December 2005) 1280138 Read More