Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(02): 147-157
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18079
Reviews
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

GIN Test: A Meta-Analysis on Its Neurodiagnostic Value

Renata Filippini
*   Departamento de Fisioterapia, Fonoaudiologia e Terapia Ocupacional, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
,
Bryan Wong
†   Speech, Language, and Hearing Department, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
,
Eliane Schochat
*   Departamento de Fisioterapia, Fonoaudiologia e Terapia Ocupacional, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
,
Frank Musiek
†   Speech, Language, and Hearing Department, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 October 2018

Publication Date:
25 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose:

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate how effective the Gaps-in-Noise (GIN) test is in separating populations who are and who are not at risk of having neurological damage related to the central auditory nervous system (CANS). This was investigated by asking three specific questions: (1) Does ear and side of lesion have an effect over the individual’s performance? (2) How large is the difference in performance between control and neurological groups? (3) What are the diagnostic indices related to the GIN test?

Data Collection and Analysis:

A literature review was performed between April 2016 and April 2017. The eligibility criteria for inclusion were as follows: (1) studies that used the GIN test as an outcome measure, (2) studies that included adult participants who either had confirmed lesions or were at risk of having lesions to the CANS or related regions, and (3) studies that had a neurologically normal control group. From relevant studies that met eligibility criteria, information regarding study design, participants, lesion details and origins, use of additional assessments, GIN performance scores for both control (CTRL) and neurological (NRLG) groups, GIN cutoff scores and proportion of individuals with normal and abnormal performances were all included.

Results:

Nine studies were included, totaling 221 participants in NRLG (stroke = 90, epilepsy = 67, and blast exposure [BLST] = 64) and 262 in CTRL (Stroke = 106, Epilepsy = 98, and BLST = 58). No significant ear effects related to side of lesion were observed for the GIN test in neurological patients nor were there significant ear differences for normal individuals with symmetrically normal hearing. The GIN demonstrated consistency among different neurological populations, presented good sensitivity and specificity rates, and was overall accurate in discriminating between participants with neuroauditory lesions from neurologically normal individuals.

Conclusions:

The GIN is thus a clinically effective measure that provides insight into the CANS integrity and may aid in clinical diagnosis by distinguishing between populations who are and who are not at risk of having neurological damage affecting the CANS.

Key Words

auditory perceptual disorders - Gaps-in-Noise - meta-analysis - nervous system diseases - sensitivity and specificity

This study was performed with funding from the São Paulo Research Foundation under the project number 2015/01813-0.


Part of this paper was presented as a research poster at AudiologyNow! 2017.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • Amaral MI, Colella-santos MF. 2010; Temporal resolution: performance of school-aged children in the GIN - Gaps-in-noise test. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 76: 745-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • American Academy of Audiology (AAA) 2010 Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of children and adults with central auditory processing disorder. http://www.audiology.org/resources/documentlibrary/Documents/CAPD%20Guidelines%208-2010.pdf . Accessed October 10, 2018.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) 2005 (Central) auditory processing disorders [Technical report] http://www.asha.org/members/deskref-journals/deskref/default . AccessedOctober 10, 2018.
    PubMed
  • Aravindkumar R, Shivashankar N, Satishchandra P, Sinha S, Saini J, Subbakrishna DK. 2012; Temporal resolution deficits in patients with refractory complex partial seizures and mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS). Epilepsy Behav 24 (01) 126-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Baker RJ, Jayewardene D, Sayle C, Saeed S. 2008; Failure to find asymmetry in auditory gap detection, laterality: asymmetries of body. Brain Cogn 13 (01) 1-21
    Google Scholar
  • Bamiou DE, Musiek FE, Stow I, Stevens J, Cipolotti L, Brown MM, Luxon LM. 2006; Auditory temporal processing deficits in patients with insular stroke. Neurology 67 (04) 614-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bamiou DE, Werring D, Cox K, Stevens J, Musiek FE, Brown MM, Luxon LM. 2012; Patient-reported auditory functions after stroke of the central auditory pathway. Stroke 43 (05) 1285-1289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bazilio MM, Frota S, Chrisman JR, Meyer A, Asmus CI, Camara VM. 2012; Temporal auditory processing in rural workers exposed to pesticide. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol 24 (02) 174-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Boscariol M, Casali RL, Amaral MI, Lunardi LL, Matas CG, Collela-Santos MF, Guerreiro MM. 2015; Language and central temporal auditory processing in childhood epilepsies. Epilepsy Behav 53: 180-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Efron R, Yund EW, Nichols D. 1985; An ear asymmetry for gap detection following anterior temporal lobectomy. Neuropsychologia 23 (01) 43-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gallun FJ, Diedesch AC, Kubli LR, Walden TC, Folmer RL, Lewis MS, McDermott DJ, Fausti SA, Leek MR. 2012; Performance on tests of central auditory processing by individuals exposed to high-intensity blasts. J Rehabil Res Dev 49 (07) 1005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gallun FJ, Lewis MS, Folmer RL, Hutter M, Papesh MA, Belding H, Leek MR. 2016; Chronic effects of exposure to high-intensity blasts: results of tests of central auditory processing. J Rehabil Res Dev 53 (06) 705-720
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Helfer KS, Vargo M. 2009; Speech recognition and temporal processing in middle-aged women. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (04) 264-271
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Higgins JPT, Green S. eds. 2011 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://handbook.cochrane.org . Accessed October 10, 2018
    PubMed
  • Hoover E, Pasquesi L, Souza P. 2015; Comparison of clinical and traditional gap detection tests. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (06) 540-546
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Humes LE, Kewley-Port D, Fogerty D, Kinney D. 2010; Measures of hearing threshold and temporal processing across the adult lifespan. Hear Res 264 (1–2) 30-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Iliadou VV, Bamiou DE, Sidiras C, Moschopoulos NP, Tsolaki M, Nimatoudis I, Chermak GD. 2017; The use of the gaps-in-noise test as an index of the enhanced left temporal cortical thinning associated with the transition between mild cognitive impairment and alzheimer’s disease. J Am Acad Audiol 28 (05) 463-471
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Jafari Z, Esmaili M, Delbari A, Mehrpour M, Mohajerani MH. 2016; Auditory temporal processing deficits in chronic stroke: a comparison of brain damage lateralization effect. J Strokecerebrovasc Dis 25 (06) 1403-1410
    Google Scholar
  • John AB, Hall 3rd JW, Kreisman BM. 2012; Effects of advancing age and hearing loss on gaps-in-noise test performance. Am J Audiol 21 (02) 242-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lavasani AN, Mohammadkhani G, Motamedi M, Karimi LJ, Jalaei S, Shojaei FS, Danesh A, Azimi H. 2016; Auditory temporal processing in patients with temporal lobe. Epilepsy Behav 60: 81-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lister J, Besing J, Koehnke J. 2002; Effects of age and frequency disparity on gap discrimination. J Acoust Soc Am 111: 2793-2800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Majak J, Zamysłowska-Szmytke E, Rajkowska E, Śliwińska-Kowalska M. 2015; Auditory temporal processing tests – normative data for Polish-speaking adults. Med Pr 66 (02) 145-152
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Musiek FE, Shinn JB, Jirsa R, Bamiou DE, Baran J, Zaidan E. 2005; GIN (Gaps-In-Noise) test performance in subjects with confirmed central auditory nervous system involvement. Ear Hear 26 (06) 608-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Musiek FE, Weihing J. 2011; Perspectives on dichotic listening and the corpus callosum. Brain Cogn 76 (02) 225-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rabelo C, Weihing J, Schochat E. 2015; Temporal resolution in individuals with neurological disorders. Clinics 70 (09) 606-611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Samelli AG, Schochat E. 2008; The gaps-in-noise test: gap detection thresholds in normal-hearing young adults. Int J Audiol 47 (05) 238-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. eds. 2013 Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. GRADE Working Group. gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html . Accessed October 10, 2018.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shinn JB, Chermak GD, Musiek FE. 2009; GIN (Gaps-In-Noise) performance in the pediatric population. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (04) 229-238
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tomlin D, Dillon H, Sharma M, Rance G. 2015; The impact of auditory processing and cognitive abilities in children. Ear Hear 36 (05) 527-542
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wallace B, Dahabreh I, Trikalinos T, Lau J, Trow P, Schmid C. 2012; Closing the gap between methodologists and end-users: R as a computational back-end. J Stat Softw 49 (05) 1-15
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Weihing J, Guenette L, Chermak G, Brown M, Ceruti J, Fitzgerald K, Geissler K, Gonzalez J, Brenneman L, Musiek F, Musiek F. 2015; Characteristics of pediatric performance on a test battery commonly used in the diagnosis of central auditory processing disorder. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (07) 652-669
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wong ACW, McPherson B. 2015; Adaptive tests of temporal resolution: comparison with the gaps-in-noise test in normal-hearing young adults. Int J Audiol 54 (01) 29-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zaidan E, Baran JA. 2013; Gaps-in-noise (GIN©) test results in children with and without reading disabilities and phonological processing deficits. Int J Audiol 52 (02) 113-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zamyslowska-Szmytke E, Fuente A, Niebudek-Bogusz E, Sliwinska-Kowalska M. 2009; Temporal processing disorder associated with styrene exposure. Audiol Neurootol 14 (05) 296-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar