4.4 Article

Evaluation of auditory spectral resolution abilities in children with benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes using spectral temporally modulated ripple test

Journal

EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 114, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107620

Keywords

Benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes; Rolandic epilepsy; Spectral resolution; Auditory discrimination; Background noise

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluated the auditory spectral resolution abilities of children with Benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes, finding that these children had significantly lower spectral resolution thresholds compared to controls.
Purpose: Spectral resolution is imperative for complex listening tasks such as understanding speech in the presence of background noise and has a significant role in children, particularly classroom learning. The present study evaluated the auditory spectral resolution abilities of children with Benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS). Method: This cross-sectional study conducted from August 2017 to March 2020 recruited 23 children with clinical and electrographic features consistent with BECTS as cases. Fifteen age and sex matched typically developing children (TDC) were taken as controls. Spectral resolution abilities were evaluated using the recently developed Spectral temporally modulated Ripple test (SMRT). Results: The mean age of the cases was 10.63 +/- 1.91 years with a slight male preponderance (69%). The mean (+/- SD) SMRT thresholds in the cases and controls were 5.90 (+/- 1.91) and 7.21 (+/- 1.03) respectively. The auditory spectral resolution threshold measured by SMRT in children with BEGS was observed to be significantly lower when compared to the controls (p of 0.021). Conclusion: Children with BECTS have a lower spectral resolution threshold by SMRT. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available