J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(03): 233-242
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.19037
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Are “Dichotic” Deficits Uniquely Dichotic? Investigating Dichotic Performance with the Dichotic Digits Difference Test (DDdT) in a Large Clinical Population of Children Referred for an Auditory Processing Assessment

Sharon Cameron
*   National Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney, Australia
†   Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Harvey Dillon
*   National Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney, Australia
†   Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
‡   University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
24 May 2020 (online)



Previous studies in a large population of typically developing (TD) children and a small clinical group showed high correlations between the dichotic and diotic conditions of the Dichotic Digits difference Test (DDdT), as well as between DDdT performance and measures of memory and attention.


The purpose of the study was to investigate the performance on the DDdT in a large clinical sample.

Research Design:

Correlational analysis between the DDdT diotic condition and the dichotic free recall (FR) right-ear, left-ear, and total (ear-averaged) conditions, as well as between DDdT and memory performance.

Study Sample:

One hundred one children (6 years 3 months to 15 years 0 month, mean 9 years 6 months) were referred for assessment to the Australian Hearing Central Auditory Processing Disorder (CAPD) service. Results were compared with data from 112 TD children collected from previously published studies.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Z-scores were used to account for the effect of age on performance. Mean differences between clinical and TD children were investigated using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Pearson product-moment correlations determined the strength of relationships between DDdT conditions and the number memory forward (NMF) and reversed (NMR) subtests of the Test of Auditory Processing Skills—Third Edition.


Performance by the clinical group on the DDdT dichotic FR (RE, LE, and total) conditions was significantly correlated with the diotic condition (r = 0.7; 0.7, 0.8; p < 0.001). Significant correlations were found between the DDdT diotic and dichotic FR conditions and the NMF (r = 0.5–0.6, p < 0.001) and NMR (r = 0.2–0.5, p < 0.025–0.001). ANOVA revealed no significant difference between the TD and clinical groups (p = 1.0000) in respect to the advantage they got from dichotic listening (calculated as dichotic FR total minus diotic score). Multiple regression revealed that diotic performance and short-term memory accounted for 68% of the variation in dichotic performance. Random measurement error accounted for a further 16%.


Factors other than dichotic performance strongly impact a child’s ability to perform a dichotic digit listening task. This result has widespread implications in respect to the interpretation of CAPD test results.

This research is funded by the Australian government through the Department of Health. Sharon Cameron and Harvey Dillon acknowledge the support of Macquarie University. Dr Dillon further acknowledges the support of the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.

Parts of the research described in this article were presented at the British Society of Audiology Inaugural e-Conference, December 2017, the Audiology Australia National Conference in Sydney, Australia, May 2018, and the World Congress of Audiology in Cape Town, South Africa, November 2018.


  • Cameron S, Dillon H. 2018. Deficit-specific diagnosis and remediation of auditory processing disorders. In: Geffner D, Ross-Swain D. Auditory Processing Disorders: Assessment, Management and Treatment. 3rd ed. San Diego, CA: Plural Publications; 95-122
  • Cameron S, Glyde H, Dillon H, King A, Gillies K. 2015; Results from a national central auditory processing disorder service: a “real world” assessment of diagnostic practices and remediation for CAPD. Semin Hear 36 (04) 216-236
  • Cameron S, Glyde H, Dillon H, Whitfield J, Seymour J. 2016; a The Dichotic Digits difference Test (DDdT): development, normative data, and test-retest reliability studies part 1. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (06) 458-469
  • Cameron S, Glyde H, Dillon H, Whitfield J. 2016; b Investigating the interaction between dichotic deficits and cognitive abilities using the Dichotic Digits difference Test (DDdT) part 2. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (06) 470-479
  • Cameron S, Glyde H, Seymour J, Dillon H. 2013. Dichotic Digits Difference Test (DDdT) (Research Version) [Computer Software]. Sydney, NSW: National Acoustic Laboratories;
  • Dillon H, Cameron S, Glyde H, Wilson W, Tomlin D. 2012; Opinion: re-designing the process of assessing people suspected of having central auditory processing disorders. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (02) 97-105
  • Fischer ME, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM, Klein BEK, Klein R, Pankow JS, Tweed TS, Dalton DS, Paulsen AJ. 2017; Dichotic digits test performance across the ages: results from two large epidemiologic cohort studies. Ear Hear 38 (03) 314-320
  • Hagerman B. 1976; Reliability in the determination of speech discrimination. Scand Audiol 5: 219-228
  • Hiscock M, Kinsbourne M. 2011; Attention and the right-ear advantage: what is the connection?. Brain Cogn 76: 263-275
  • Hurley R, Musiek F. 1997; Effectiveness of three central auditory processing (CAP) tests in identifying cerebral lesions. J Am Acad Audiol 8 (04) 257-262
  • Kelley KS, Littenberg B. 2018; Structured review of dichotic tests of binaural integration: clinical performance in children. Am J Audiol 27: 156-166
  • Magimairaja BM, Nagaraj NK. 2018; Working memory and auditory processing in school-age children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 49: 409-423
  • Martin N, Brownell R. 2005. Test of Auditory Processing Skills. 3rd ed. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications;
  • Martin J, Jerger J, Mehta J. 2007; Divided-attention and directed-attention listening modes in children with dichotic deficits: an event-related potential study. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (01) 34-53
  • Moncrieff D, Keith W, Abramson M, Swann A. 2016; Diagnosis of amblyaudia in children referred for auditory processing assessment. Int J Audiol 55 (06) 333-345
  • Moncrieff D, Keith W, Abramson M, Swann A. 2017; Evidence of binaural integration benefits following ARIA training for children and adolescents diagnosed with amblyaudia. Int J Audiol 56 (08) 580-588
  • Moore R, Sieswerda SL, Grainger MM, Bowling A, Smith N, Perdew A, Eichert S, Alston S, Hilbert LW, Summers L, Lin L, Hunter LL. 2018; Referral and diagnosis of developmental auditory processing disorder in a large, United States hospital-based audiology service. J Am Acad Audiol 29 (05) 364-377
  • Musiek M. 1983; Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear Hear 5 (02) 79-83
  • Musiek M, Chermak G, Weihing J, Zappulla M, Nagle S. 2011; Diagnostic accuracy of established central auditory processing test batteries in patients with documented brain lesions. J Am Acad Audiol 22 (06) 342-358
  • Osisanya A, Adewunmi A. 2018; Evidence-based interventions of dichotic listening training, compensatory strategies and combined therapies in managing pupils with auditory processing disorders. Int J Audiol 57 (02) 115-123
  • Schmithorst VJ, Farah R, Keith RW. 2013; Left ear advantage in speech-related dichotic listening is not specific to auditory processing disorder in children: a machine-learning fMRI and DTI study. Neuroimage Clin 3: 8-17
  • Stavrinos G, Iliadou VM, Edwards L, Sirimanna T, Bamiou DE. 2018; The relationship between types of attention and auditory processing skills: reconsidering auditory processing disorder diagnosis. Front Psychol 9 (34) 1-13
  • Weihing J, Atcherson SR. 2014. Dichotic listening tests. In: Chermak GD, Musiek FE. Handbook of Central Auditory Processing Disorder. Auditory Neuroscience and Diagnosis. Vol. I San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 369-404
  • Westerhausen R, Hugdahl K. 2008; The corpus callosum in dichotic listening studies of hemispheric asymmetry: a review of clinical and experimental evidence. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 32: 1044-1054