Problems in Audiovisual Filtering for Children with Special Educational Needs

Abstract

There is pervasive evidence that problems in sensory processing occur across a range of developmental disorders, but their aetiology and clinical significance remain unclear. The present study investigated the relation between sensory processing and literacy skills in children with and without a background of special educational needs (SEN). Twenty-six children aged between 7 and 12 years old, from both regular classes and SEN programmes, participated. Following baseline tests of literacy, fine motor skills and naming speed, two sets of instruments were administered: the carer-assessed Child Sensory Profile-2 and a novel Audiovisual Animal Stroop (AVAS) test. The SEN group showed significantly higher ratings on three Child Sensory Profile-2 quadrants, together with body position ratings. The SEN participants also showed a specific deficit when required to ignore an accompanying incongruent auditory stimulus on the AVAS. Interestingly, AVAS performance correlated significantly with literacy scores and with the sensory profile scores. It is proposed that the children with SEN showed a specific deficit in "filtering out" irrelevant auditory input. The results highlight the importance of including analysis of sensory processes within theoretical and applied approaches to developmental differences and suggest promising new approaches to the understanding, assessment, and support of children with SEN.

Keywords: cerebellum; learning; literacy; occupational therapy; response selection; sensory processing.

Figure 1.

Sample Screen From AC/AVAS. For the standard version, only the stimulus picture was shown. For the AV condition, a compatible (bark for dog, mew for cat) or incompatible (bark for cat, mew for dog) noise was presented synchronously with the image onset.

Figure 2.

Dyslexia Screening Test-Junior. Significant differences between groups at ***< .001, **< .01, *< .05. Error bars represent standard error. RAN = rapid automatised naming; BeadT = bead threading; Read = reading; Phon = phonemic segmentation; Rhym = rhyming; Spell = spelling; TA = typically achieving; SEN = special educational needs; DST-J = Dyslexia Screening Test-Junior.

Figure 3.

Representation of the Groups on Each of the Four Quadrants of Dunn’s Model Along the Categorical Ranges.

Figure 4.

Line Plots Show Accuracy Scores and Reaction Time Scores by Both AC and AVAS Conditions. AVAS data include both congruent and conflict conditions. Error bars represent standard error. TA = typically achieving; SEN = special educational needs; AC/AVAS = Animal Classification/Audiovisual Animal Stroop.

Figure 5.

Line Plot Shows the Reaction Time Scores Interaction Between Conflict/Non-conflict Auditory Stimulus on the AVAS Condition. Error bars represent standard error. TA = typically achieving; SEN = special educational needs; AVAS = Audiovisual Animal Stroop.