Abstract
AbstractHearing has an important role in human development and social adaptation in blind people. ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of temporal auditory processing in blind people; to characterize the temporal resolution ability; to characterize the temporal ordinance ability and to compare the performance of the study population in the applied tests. MethodsFifteen blind adults participated in this study. A cross-sectional study was undertaken; approval was obtained from the Pernambuco Catholic University Ethics Committee, no. 003/2008. ResultsTemporal auditory processing was excellent - the average composed threshold in the original RGDT version was 4.98 ms; it was 50 ms for all frequencies in the expanded version. PPS and DPS results ranged from 95% to 100%. There were no quantitative differences in the comparison of tests; but oral reports suggested that the original RGDT original version was more difficult. ConclusionThe study sample performed well in temporal auditory processing; it also performed well in temporal resolution and ordinance abilities.
Highlights
There were no quantitative differences in the comparison of tests; but oral reports suggested that the original random gap detection test (RGDT) original version was more difficult
According to the reference literature, the original version of the RGDT test defines the normal gap detection as being 20 ms or less at all frequencies[8,12,13,14]. This was observed in our study, where values were less than half the normal value for the tested abilities - on average a 4.98 compound threshold - which revealed significant temporal resolution agility in the study sample
These results show excellent performance in temporal processing in the study sample - mean compound threshold = 4.98
Summary
Temporal auditory processing was excellent - the average composed threshold in the original. RGDT version was 4.98 ms; it was 50 ms for all frequencies in the expanded version. PPS and DPS results ranged from 95% to 100%. There were no quantitative differences in the comparison of tests; but oral reports suggested that the original RGDT original version was more difficult
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
