This case can be placed in a neurologic classification. The patient is a child with learning disability in school activities. He was first referred to an audiological clinic because of a central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). His mother has noticed several hearing problems and this led us to the evaluations for his central auditory processing disorder. He has problems in hearing speech in noise and speech processing and need his friends repeat words during communication. no vestibular disorder was noticed nor any localization problem. The child has a good progress in school and only suffered problems in reading tasks. Intelligence quotient(IQ) was also normal.

Background and Aim: A common complaint of children with learning disability (LD) is difficulty in understanding speech in the presence of background noise. Evidence from animal and human studies has indicated that the medial olivocochlear bundle (MOCB) play a role in hearing in the presence of noise. The MOCB function can be evaluated by the suppression effect of the click evoked otoacoustic emission (CEOAEs) in response to contralateral white noise. The present study was conducted to compare the suppression effect of CEOAEs between LD and normal students.

Materials and Method: This research is an analytic-interventional study. The study group consisted of 20 learning disabled and 20 normal male students. The suppression effect of CEOAEs was evaluated by a comparison between CEOAEs levels in two conditions- with and without presentation of contralateral white noise.

Results: In the absence of noise there was no significant difference between CEOAEs amplitudes of two groups while there was significant difference between CEOAEs of two groups in the presence of noise. The suppression effect of CEOAEs in normal students had significant difference with LD students.

Conclusion: The reduced suppression effect in LD students indicates the reduced activity of the MOCB function and efferent pathway in LD students which affect their ability to hear in the presence of background noise. Consequently, the suppression effect of CEOAEs can be used in the test battery approach of LD children.

Background and Aim: Learning disability is a term referes to a group of disorders manifesting listening, reading, writing, or mathematical problems. These children mostly have attention difficulties in classroom that leads to many learning problems. In this study we aimed to compare the auditory attention of 7 to 9 year old children with learning disability to non- learning disability age matched normal group.
Methods: Twenty seven male 7 to 9 year old students with learning disability and 27 age and sex matched normal conrols were selected with unprobable simple sampling. 27 In order to evaluate auditory selective and divided attention, Farsi versions of speech in noise and dichotic digit test were used respectively.
Results: Comparison of mean scores of Farsi versions of speech in noise in both ears of 7 and 8 year-old students in two groups indicated no significant difference (p>0.05) Mean scores of 9 year old controls was significant more than those of the cases only in the right ear (p=0.033). However, no significant difference was observed between mean scores of dichotic digit test assessing the right ear of 9 year-old learning disability and non learning disability students (p>0.05). Moreover, mean scores of 7 and 8 year- old students with learning disability was less than those of their normal peers in the left ear (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Selective auditory attention is not affected in the optimal signal to noise ratio, while divided attention seems to be affected by maturity delay of auditory system or central auditory system disorders.

Background and Aim: Auditory temporal processing reveals an important aspect of auditory performance, in which a deficit can prevent the child from speaking, language learning and reading. Temporal resolution, which is a subgroup of temporal processing, can be evaluated by gap-in-noise detection test. Regarding the relation of auditory temporal processing deficits and phonologic disorder of children with dyslexia-dysgraphia, the aim of this study was to evaluate these children with the gap-in-noise (GIN) test.
Methods: The gap-in-noise test was performed on 28 normal and 24 dyslexic-dysgraphic children, at the age of 11-12 years old. Mean approximate threshold and percent of corrected answers were compared between the groups.
Results: The mean approximate threshold and percent of corrected answers of the right and left ear had no significant difference between the groups (p>0.05). The mean approximate threshold of children with dyslexia-dysgraphia (6.97 ms, SD=1.09) was significantly (p<0.001) more than that of the normal group (5.05 ms, SD=0.92). The mean related frequency of corrected answers (58.05, SD=4.98%) was less than normal group (69.97, SD=7.16%) (p<0.001).
Conclusion: Abnormal temporal resolution was found in children with dyslexia-dysgraphia based on gap-in-noise test. While the brainstem and auditory cortex are responsible for auditory temporal processing, probably the structural and functional differences of these areas in normal and dyslexic-dysgraphic children lead to abnormal coding of auditory temporal information. As a result, auditory temporal processing is inevitable.