Navegando por Palavras-chave "Processamento Espacial Visual"

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
  • Imagem de Miniatura
    Item
    Acesso aberto (Open Access)
    Função auditiva central e percepção visual de escolares submetidos á estimulação auditiva, visuomotora e neuroauditiva (SENA)
    (Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), 2019-06-18) Viacelli, Sandra Nunes Alves [UNIFESP]; Pereira, Liliane Desgualdo [UNIFESP]; http://lattes.cnpq.br/0546134611213515; http://lattes.cnpq.br/4417137094868095; Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
    To verify the efficacy of an Intervention Program with three types of stimulation, performed in isolated and combined ways: NeuroAudiotive Stimulation (SENA); Visuomotor Stimulation; and, Acoustically Controlled Auditory Training (TAAC), in students‟ central auditory function and visual perception. Methods. Thirty students from 8 to 11 years old participated (15 boys). Children with normal auditory thresholds and difficulties in school learning were included, among those attended at the speech and language clinic of the institution. Children who were not willing to participate of the study, with evidence of neuropsychiatric disorders, altered auditory processing in one behavioral test only and normal visual perception during screening were excluded. The procedures were: evaluation of auditory processing (resolution and temporal ordering skills, figure-background in monotonic and dichotic listening and a questionnaire answered by parents about auditory behaviors in daily communication); SAB scale; visual perception evaluation (DTVP 2); and, evaluation of short evoked potential (FFR) and long latency (p300). The first evaluation performed was called time 1. After the first type of stimulation, the reevaluation was performed (time 2). After the program ended, last evaluation were performed (time 3). Children were submitted to a intervention program, with three different types of stimulation (seven and a half hours each): SENA, TAAC and VISUOMOTOR, presented in different sequences. First sequence was named GROUP 1 (SENA, VISOMOTOR, TAAC), the second one GROUP 2 (VISOMOTOR, SENA, and TAAC) and the third one, GROUP 3 (TAAC, SENA, and VISOMOTOR). Among the stimulations, two of them offered auditory stimulation, ie, TAAC and SENA, and the remaining one, visuomotor (placebo). TAAC was performed as used in clinical practice. SENA consisted of intermittent speech and music auditory stimulation, provided by headphones to the child while performing a motor activity through computer games. An analog converter was used, which allowed SENA application in three children at the same time. Visuomotor stimulation consisted of spatial orientation, balance, segmental limb awareness and visuomotor coordination activities, in groups of five children. Participants were distributed by convenience into each intervention group. The intervention groups age distribution was carefully xvi structured, being three children of 8 years, three children of 9 years, two of 10 years and two of 11 years of age, totalizing 10 participants per group. Results. A longitudinal analysis to verify the intervention program effectiveness showed a statistically significant difference between the three moments, for 95% of the analyzed variables. In a cross-sectional analysis to verify performance between groups at each time point, it was observed that at time 1 there were no statistically significant differences. At time 2 there was a statistically significant difference in E-wave latency in FFR and TPD in imitation and naming tasks for group 3, indicating effect of the intervention sequence that began with acoustically controlled auditory training. In addition, in SAB total score, we verified a statistically significant difference in performance for group 1, indicating the effect of intervention sequence that began with SENA. At time 3, statistical significance occurred for p3 latency in right and left ear in group 3, indicating effect of intervention sequence that began with acoustically controlled auditory training. Also in time 3, the improvement in TDD in group 1 left ear indicating effect of intervention sequence that began with SENA. Conclusion. There was efficacy of the therapeutic procedures used in the research. The best treatment options were group 1 (started by SENA) or group 3 (started by TAAC). The sequence should be defined by the diagnostic evaluation before the therapeutic course. We emphasize the results of this study should be interpreted in a partial way, since the sample does not allow generalizations, requiring additional research to better understand the findings for SENA.