Brain and Cognition 76 (2011) 316–322

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Brain and Cognition

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/b&c

Dichotic listening in children: Age-related changes in direction and magnitude

of ear advantage
Deborah W. Moncrieff ⇑
University of Pittsburgh, 4033 Forbes Tower, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Children between the ages of 5 and 12 years were tested with dichotic listening tests utilizing single syl-
Available online 6 May 2011 lable words and random presentations of digits. They produced a higher prevalence of left ear dominance
than expected, especially among right-handed children when tested with words. Whether more children
Keywords: demonstrate the LEA because of right hemisphere dominance for language or because there is less stabil-
Dichotic ity in ear advantage direction at younger ages cannot be fully resolved by this study. When ear advanta-
Ear advantage ges were measured by subtracting each child’s lower score from the higher score without regard to right
Lateralization
or left direction, an age-related trend toward lower measures of ear advantage was evident. This trend
Development
Children
was greater for dichotic words than for dichotic digits. Structural factors that may be related to these
Amblyaudia results and possible influences of attention and verbal workload on the two kinds of dichotic stimuli
are discussed.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction may not be rigidly established in younger children, beginning a

We measure hearing one ear at a time, but listening occurs
through both ears and complete parity of signals arriving at the
right and left ear at any given time is relatively rare. Therefore,
the intake of information through the auditory system requires
an online integration of differing and potentially competing infor-
mation presented to the two ears. Broadbent (1954) first reported
that when two different words were presented to the right and left
ear simultaneously, normal listeners could accurately identify
more words heard at their right ear. Later, Doreen Kimura (1961)
ascribed the dichotic listening right ear advantage (REA) to stron-
ger crossed auditory pathways from the right ear ascending di-
rectly to the speech-dominant left cerebral hemisphere. She
further noted that the REA was enhanced by suppression of infor-
mation ascending via the ipsilateral pathway from the left ear to
the speech-dominant left hemisphere.
At the time, researchers were concerned that handedness may
not be an accurate index of hemispheric dominance for language
(Goodglass & Otjadfasel, 1954) and they saw the dichotic listening
ear advantage as a potentially better method for determining later-
alization. Shortly after her groundbreaking study of dichotic listen-
ing in adults, Kimura (1963) reported that right-handed children
from age 4 to 9 years produced an average REA, suggesting a con-
tralateral left hemisphere lateralization for speech stimuli as early
as age 4 years or before. She also noted that cerebral dominance
⇑ Fax: +1 412 383 6555.
E-mail address: dmoncrie@pitt.edu
controversy over development of ear advantage and language lat-
eralization that persists today. Bryden (1970) reported that the
prevalence of an REA increased from 2nd to 6th grade among
right-handers, suggesting that left hemisphere dominance for lan-
guage may not be firmly established in younger children. He also
reported that some left-handers switched to a left-ear advantage
(LEA) by the 6th grade, raising the possibility that direction of
ear advantage is subject to developmental factors and that right
hemisphere dominance may also be normal. Some reported that
the magnitude of the REA changed with age as children became
more strongly lateralized for language (Fennell, Satz, & Morris,
1983) but others reported that the REA remained the same when
tested with consonant–vowels (CVs) (Berlin, Hughes, Lowe-Bell,
& Berlin, 1973), words (Geffen, 1976), or CVs, words, and digits
(Bryden & Allard, 1981). A statistical analysis of two longitudinal
studies utilizing dichotic digits in school-age subjects found no
developmental pattern and concluded that dichotic listening in
the free recall mode may be ineffective for measuring lateralization
(Morris, Bakker, & Satz, 1984). This prompted a flurry of research
into response techniques to add control over the listener’s atten-
tion, but these also failed to produce a reliable pattern of
development.
For many decades, researchers interested in development of
cerebral dominance and its impact on language and learning have
used the dichotic listening technique to investigate these issues.
With digits, words, and CVs, they have compared free recall and di-
rected response methodologies, and have asked children to re-
spond by recognition, memory, or repetition techniques. Some
have reported a larger REA in children with disabilities when

0278-2626/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.03.013
 D.W. Moncrieff / Brain and Cognition 76 (2011) 316–322
tested with digits and words because of lower reports of stimuli
from the left ear (Kershner & Morton, 1990; Moncrieff & Black,
2008; Morton & Siegel, 1991) whereas others reported a weaker
REA or the LEA when children with disabilities were tested with
CVs (Helland & Asbjornsen, 2001; Martínez & Sánchez, 1995;
Moncrieff & Black, 2008; Morton & Siegel, 1991; Obrzut, Conrad,
& Boliek, 1989).
Some dichotic listening tests with words and digits have been
administered to children from age 5 to age 18 for the purpose of
establishing normative data so that the tests can be administered
clinically. Normative information is available as separate right
and left ear scores and test results are compared to standard values
to determine if one or both ears fall below normal (Katz, Basil, &
Smith, 1963; Moncrieff & Wilson, 2009; Musiek, 1983). Average
values of the REA and the overall prevalence of the LEA at each
age level in normative studies are typically not reported, but there
does appear to be a decrease in magnitude of the REA when chil-
dren are tested with digits and words, but not when they are as-
sessed with CVs. A recent study compared the incidence of
abnormal results when magnitude of the REA was used instead
of standard scoring techniques and reported that ear advantage
magnitude may be more effective at determining clinically signif-
icant results than individual or combined ear scores when assess-
ing children’s dichotic listening (Moncrieff, 2004). Additional
information about direction and magnitude of ear advantage could
reveal age-related trends in development of dichotic listening
skills.
Normative values for ear advantage based on the absolute dif-
ference between the two ears without regard to right or left might
be more useful in determining clinically significant outcomes in
children. Current normative data fails to account for inclusion of
left-ear dominance among children tested. Therefore, a true mea-
sure of ear advantage at each age could be underestimated. Long
ago, Larsen (1984) suggested that stable ear advantage values in
young children may be due to the customary practice of determin-
ing them by subtracting the left ear score from the right ear score.
If younger children produce larger ear advantages and several pro-
duce the LEA, the presence of LEA data yields negative values that
when added to the positive values for REAs would yield lower
averages across children within that age group. Larsen reported
that when differences between the two ears were calculated for
each individual child, developmental patterns emerged. Similarly,
absolute values for ear differences could provide important evi-
dence of how the magnitude of ear advantage changes with
development.
Information about age-related prevalence of the LEA would also
address whether direction of ear advantage changes with maturity,
with some children switching from LEA to REA. A consistent REA
prevalence, similar to the reported 80–85% of right-handed adults
and 50% of left-handed adults (Hiscock, Inch, & Ewing, 2005),
would support the notion that hemispheric dominance is fully lat-
eralized at birth. In contrast, if ear advantage direction depends on
developmental factors, then REA prevalence could increase or de-
crease as children mature. Bryden’s (1970) report of a higher prev-
alence of the LEA among younger children suggested that direction
of ear advantage may be unstable among younger children and
that some switch from the LEA to the REA as a consequence of nor-
mal development.
Two new dichotic listening tests have been developed and nor-
mative information is currently being gathered from school-age
children. A preliminary review of results from this data collection
will be reported here to explore whether direction and degree of
ear advantage are stable across school-age development. Stability
of ear advantage direction will be confirmed if the prevalence of
the REA and the LEA remains similar across all age levels. Increases
in prevalence of either the REA or LEA would support the notion
317
that developmental increases in attention, working memory and/
or language skills affect ear advantage direction. Finally, because
the magnitude of ear advantage may be underestimated at each
age level by numerically averaging across children with both REAs
and LEAs, ear advantages will also be calculated as the numerical
difference between the dominant and non-dominant ear without
regard to right or left. Age-related changes in ear advantage using
both the traditional method and this alternative method will be
examined for developmental trends and the two methods will be
compared for significant differences.
2. Methods
Children ages 5–12 years participated in the study. Most were
recruited for a normative study and others were assessed as part
of a clinical evaluation for auditory processing (23 of the 50 chil-
dren evaluated clinically were thought to have greater than normal
difficulty with dichotic listening). Results from both classes of chil-
dren are included in this study because it is not intended as a nor-
mative sample per se but is interested in magnitude and direction
of ear advantage within individual age groups. Each child partici-
pated with the consent of a parent or legal guardian in accordance
with policies of the university institutional review board or the
clinical site at which they were assessed. Children were tested at
various locations, including a quiet room at their school or home,
at a hospital, at a clinical practice, or at a university research labo-
ratory. All children had normal hearing with no pure tone thresh-
olds poorer than 20 dB HL in either ear at the time of testing.
Handedness was assessed by a modified survey which asked about
use of everyday items such as a toothbrush, pen for writing a letter,
or scissors (Annett, 1970). In some cases, handedness was not as-
sessed. Two different dichotic listening tests were used. Normative
data for one of the tests, the Randomized Dichotic Digits Test
(RDDT), has been previously reported for children ages 10 to
18 years (Moncrieff & Wilson, 2009). The RDDT lacks the ceiling ef-
fects that have been found among older children when tested with
double dichotic digits (Moncrieff & Musiek, 2002; Neijenhuis, Snik,
& van den Broek, 2003). The Dichotic Words Test (DWT) is a new
dichotic listening test comprised of single syllable words. Stimuli
for the DWT were created by aligning two single syllable words
spoken in a male voice, each matched for time of onset and time
of offset so that the total duration of each word in a pair was iden-
tical. Four lists of 25 words were created so that each list was bal-
anced for phonemic content. The initial and final consonant and
medial vowel were balanced to the extent possible within each list
and across the four lists. Average root mean square (RMS) ampli-
tude was equalized for each word so that all stimuli were pre-
sented at the same RMS amplitude across the entire test.
Digits and words were presented at a comfortable listening le-
vel to the two ears, either at 50 dB HL bilaterally through insert
earphones or TDH-50 supra-aural earphones attached to a clinical
audiometer or through Sennheiser 280 Pro circumaural earphones
attached to a Dell laptop computer with output level confirmed by
the examiner prior to beginning the test. Each time, the intensity
was balanced across the two ears so that the presentation to the
right ear was always at the same intensity as the presentation to
the left ear. Children were instructed to listen for the digits or
words and to repeat everything that they had heard from each
ear. All children completed two word lists and the randomized list
of digits in a free recall paradigm in which they were given no spe-
cific instructions about the order for reporting what they heard. A
subset of children also completed two other lists of the DWT in a
directed response format during which they were instructed to re-
peat the word heard in their right ear first for one list and the word
heard in their left ear first for another list. The number of correct
318 D.W. Moncrieff / Brain and Cognition 76 (2011) 316–322

responses was converted to percentage for the 1-pair, 2-pairs and those tested with the DWT, some were also tested in the directed
3-pairs conditions of the RDDT and across each list of the DWT. response format (n = 145). A paired t-test on DWT ear advantages
DWT lists were chosen randomly from among the four lists avail- between the free recall and directed response formats among those
able for each child tested. who were tested both ways showed no significant differences in
Ear advantages were measured two ways. In the first traditional ear advantages, t = .586, p = .559, so scores for the two free recall
way, the score for the left ear was subtracted from the score for the lists of the DWT were used for determining ear advantages in this
right ear which yields a positive number for a REA, a negative num- study. Another paired t-test on differences in RDDT ear advantages
ber for a LEA, and zero for no ear advantage (NEA). Results were between the 2-pairs condition and the overall test also failed to
used to measure the prevalence of ear advantage directions and achieve significance, t = 1.905, p = .058, so scores for the 2-pairs
to produce an average value among children in each age group. condition of the RDDT were used.
In the second case, the lower score was subtracted from the higher Demographics regarding age, gender, and handedness of chil-
score to yield an ear advantage that provides the difference be- dren involved in the study are shown in Table 1. A total of 190 chil-
tween the child’s dominant and non-dominant ears without regard dren tested with the RDDT were right-handed (96 females and 94
to right or left. Again, an average value for ear advantage was mea- males) and similarly, 190 of the children tested with the DWT were
sured for the children within each age group. The two average val- right-handed (89 females and 101 males). Ear advantages were
ues for ear advantage were compared for significant differences. compared between right-handed children and all other children
in the study (left-handed and handedness unknown) by univariate
3. Results analysis of variance (ANOVA) and no significant differences in ear
advantages were noted for the RDDT, F(1, 246) = 1.902, p = .169,
A total of 247 children were tested with the RDDT and 241 chil- or the DWT, F(1, 240) = 1.370, p = .243. As shown in Table 2, the
dren were tested with the DWT in the free recall format. Among only significant main effect on ear advantage when children were
tested with the DWT occurred for gender because the average
overall REA was greater among males than females (see Fig. 1).
Table 1 Age failed to produce any significant effects on DWT ear advanta-
Demographics regarding the number of male and female children at each age level ges. There were significant main effects of age and gender on RDDT
included in the study and indicating their handedness if known.
ear advantages, but no significant interaction between them. Post-
Age Males Females Total hoc tests with Bonferroni correction revealed that the main effect
L-Hand R-Hand Unknown L-Hand R-Hand Unknown of age for the RDDT occurred between 5-year-old children and chil-
dren at 6, 7, 8, and 10 years of age and between 7-year-old children
Dichotic words test
5 1 6 1 1 5 0 14 and children 11 and 12 years of age. Males produced a higher aver-
6 1 11 2 1 10 1 26 age ear advantage on the RDDT also (see Fig. 1) and children at age
7 1 12 1 1 19 5 39 5 produced an average LEA.
8 1 17 2 0 11 4 35
The main effects of age on RDDT results may have been due to
9 1 9 5 1 11 1 28
10 0 7 4 0 8 1 20
fewer children at the youngest ages. Children between ages 5 and 7
11 2 17 4 1 22 3 49 represented the smallest group studied with the RDDT (21% of the
12 0 10 3 0 15 2 30 total) and among them were 4 left-handed children, compared to 2
Total 7 89 22 5 101 17 241 left-handers among the children ages 8–10 years (32% of the total)
Randomized dichotic digits test and 6 among the children 11–12 years (47% of the total). More chil-
5 1 4 0 0 4 0 9 dren between the ages of 5 and 7 (33% of the total) were repre-
6 1 8 1 1 7 0 18
sented in the DWT results for which there was no effect of age. It
7 1 9 1 0 9 5 25
8 1 14 2 0 10 4 31 is possible that a higher proportion of 5-year-old left-handed chil-
9 0 6 3 1 7 1 18 dren led to a strong average LEA when tested with the RDDT. At age
10 0 11 7 0 12 1 31 7, the significant differences in RDDT results appear to be due to a
11 4 25 9 1 27 5 71 dramatic shift toward a larger REA. That age group was also smal-
12 0 17 4 1 20 2 44
Total 8 94 27 4 96 18 247
ler, suggesting that a large effect could have been influenced by rel-
atively few subjects. An REA greater than 40% was demonstrated

Table 2
Top panel: main effects and interactions from a univariate ANOVA on RDDT and DWT ear advantages. Bottom panel: main effects and interactions from a repeated measures
ANOVA on method used to calculate RDDT and DWT ear advantages (DL = dichotic listening).

DL test Within-Ss Between-Ss df Error F p

Univariate analysis of variance on main effects and interactions with ear advantages
RDDT Ear advantage Age 7 246 5.328 <.001*
Gender 1 246 3.942 .048*
Age  gender 7 246 1.541 .154ns
DWT Ear advantage Age 7 240 0.638 .724ns
Gender 1 240 4.951 .027*
Age  gender 7 240 1.096 .367ns
Repeated measures ANOVA on methods of calculating ear advantages
RDDT Method 1 241 20.577 <.001*
Method  age group 2 241 7.604 .001*
Age group 2 241 16.866 <.001*
DWT Method 1 235 31.548 <.001*
Gender 1 235 5.381 .021*
Age group 2 235 4.385 .014*
*
Significant findings.
 D.W. Moncrieff / Brain and Cognition 76 (2011) 316–322
Fig. 1. Mean ear advantages for males and females when tested with the DWT and
RDDT are shown with standard error bars. Males produced significantly higher ear
advantages than females with the DWT.
by 4 of the 11 males and 3 of the 15 females which may have
shifted the ear advantage magnitude higher among those children.
To further explore the relationship between ear advantage cat-
egory and stimulus type (digits versus words), the frequency of
each ear advantage type was analyzed by cross tabulation of data
for only those children who were tested with both the DWT and
the RDDT on the same date (n = 160). Handedness was known for
all of these children and there were 3 left-handed females (out of
82) and 6 left-handed males (out of 78). To counteract the effects
of fewer children at age 5, age groups were created for these anal-
yses. Pearson Chi-square results revealed that ear advantage fre-
quencies differed between the DWT and RDDT among children in
the 8 to 10 years group, v2 (2, 100) = 7.934, p = .019, and in the
11 to 12 years group, v2 (2, 132) = 11.590, p = .003. As shown in
Fig. 2A, these results appear to be more heavily influenced by the
frequencies of the LEA which differed between the two types of
stimuli within those age groups. Results for younger children, how-
ever, were more strongly associated. A possible explanation for
greater differences in frequencies of each ear advantage type be-
tween the two tests is that a greater number of the older children
produced equal performance in both ears with the RDDT, leading
Fig. 2. Prevalence of leftward (LEA) and rightward (REA) ear advantages are shown within each of the 3 age groups tested. In (A), LEA prevalence decreased in a linear manner
with age when children were tested with digits (gray bars), but remained more stable when children were tested with words (black bars). In (B), REA prevalence
demonstrated no age-related trend for either digits (gray bars) or words (black bars).
319
Fig. 3. Prevalence of no ear advantage (NEA) is shown for children within each age
group when tested with the DWT and the RDDT. Older children produced a high
prevalence of NEA when tested with the RDDT.
to the NEA. More NEA results reduce REA and/or LEA prevalence.
There was a dramatic rise in NEA prevalence among the oldest
group of children from 10% to nearly 23% when tested with the
RDDT whereas NEA prevalence for the DWT remained low across
all age groups (see Fig. 3).
Because of the significant effects of gender on ear advantage
scores, the same cross tabulations were performed separately for
male and female subjects. Significant differences in frequency of
ear advantage direction occurred among females tested with
DWT, v2 (4, 82) = 12.042, p = .017. The differences were most sig-
nificant among 8- to 10-year-old females, v2 (2, 50) = 6.000
(df = 2), p = .050. As shown in Fig. 4A, this effect appears to be
due to a higher LEA prevalence with the DWT than with the RDDT.
Significant test-related differences also occurred among 11- to 12-
year-old males, v2 (2, 58) = 10.088, p = .006 who also produced a
higher LEA prevalence with the DWT. LEA prevalence with dichotic
words rose to a surprising 37.9% for males in the oldest age group.
There were two left-handed males in that age group and only one
of them produced a LEA on the DWT. REA prevalence among male
and female children tested with both tests is displayed in Fig. 4B.
Average REA prevalence with the DWT ranged from 40% among
the youngest females to over 80% among the males in the middle
age group. Across all of the children in this subset (n = 160), REA
320 D.W. Moncrieff / Brain and Cognition 76 (2011) 316–322

Fig. 4. Prevalence of leftward (LEA) and rightward (REA) ear advantages are shown separately for males and females within each of the 3 age groups tested. In (A), LEA
prevalence increased with age among males and decreased with age among females tested with the DWT but showed a similar decrease with age when both males and
females were tested with the RDDT. In (B), REA prevalence varied across test type and gender.

prevalence was 73.8% with the RDDT and 67.6% with the DWT.
These results were compared to REA prevalence across all of the
children in the study which were similar at 75% with the RDDT
(n = 247) and 70% with the DWT (n = 241).

4. Degree of ear advantage

Ear advantages were calculated for all children in the study in

the traditional manner by subtracting the score for the left ear
from the score for the right ear. They were also calculated in the
alternative manner by subtracting the score for the non-dominant
ear (the lower score) from the score for the dominant ear. The two
methods for calculating ear advantage were compared by repeated
measures ANOVA and there were significant main effects of calcu-
lation method and age group with both tests as shown in Table 2.
There were significant main effects of gender on methods of calcu-
lating DWT ear advantages when results for both methods were
combined (average for males = 13.3%, average for females = 9.5%).
There was also a significant interaction between calculation meth-
od and age group with the RDDT. As predicted, the traditional
method for calculating ear advantage that incorporates negative
values for children demonstrating an LEA produced a significantly
smaller value for results from both tests than the value calculated
by the alternative method (see Fig. 5). Average ear advantages
were larger among younger children with both tests, regardless
of the method used to calculate them. Post-hoc comparisons using
the Dunnett t-test which treated the oldest age group as a control
indicated significant differences between all age groups for DWT
results (p = .014 for comparison to the youngest age group and
p = .049 for comparison to the middle age group). Significant differ-
ences between all age groups were also noted for RDDT results
(p < .001 for comparison to the youngest age group and p = .001
for comparison to the middle age group).
An age-related trend toward smaller ear advantages was stron-
ger in alternative method results than in averages calculated tradi-
tionally (see Fig. 6). The traditional method suggested a reduction
in average ear advantage of approximately 3% for DWT (Fig. 6B)
and 9% for RDDT (Fig. 6A) as children matured from age 5 to age
12. When calculated without regard to right or left ear, the average
age-related downward shift of interaural asymmetry was 8% for
DWT and 19% for RDDT. With both digits and words, the alterna-
tive method for calculating ear advantage revealed an age-related
decrease in average ear advantage values that was more than dou-
ble the size of the change observed with the traditional method.
Fig. 5. Compared to the traditional method of determining ear advantage by
subtracting the score for the left ear from the score for the right ear (shown by the
broken line), the alternative method that that determines ear advantage by
subtracting the lower score from the higher score without regard to which ear was
superior (shown by the solid line) demonstrates a significantly larger average ear
advantage value for results from both the DWT and the RDDT. Standard error bars
are shown.
5. Summary and conclusions
The fact that a majority of children produced the REA across
both of these tests is not surprising, especially among those who
were right-handed. The prevalence of the LEA, however, occurred
at a higher prevalence than expected from previous literature.
The distribution of RDDT ear advantages in this study neared the
REA rates of 80–85% and LEA or NEA rates of 15–20% among
right-handed adults and 10- to 18-year-old children previously re-
ported with the RDDT (Moncrieff & Wilson, 2009). These results
are also similar to REA rates reported from a study of adults per-
forming the Fused Dichotic Words Test (Hiscock et al., 2005). With
the DWT, a lower REA prevalence occurred among both left- and
right-handed children, with roughly one-quarter of them demon-
strating the LEA across all 3 age groups. Males in the oldest age
group produced the largest LEA prevalence. All of the oldest age
group males and all of the youngest age group females who
produced the LEA with dichotic words were recruited to partici-
pate in the normative study. None of them had been referred for
 D.W. Moncrieff / Brain and Cognition 76 (2011) 316–322
Fig. 6. Age-related trends toward lower ear advantage values calculated according to the alternative method are shown. In (A), the contrast between the two methods is
significant for the youngest and oldest age groups of children tested with digits (RDDT). In (B), the contrast between the two methods is significant across all age groups for
children tested with words (DWT). Standard error bars are shown.
a clinical auditory processing assessment. Single-syllable words
are thought to involve the highest verbal workload for dichotic
testing, so it would be expected that a dichotic words test would
be optimal for reflecting hemispheric dominance for language. If
that is the case, then results from this study would suggest that
more children than expected may have right hemispheric domi-
nance for language as reflected by evidence of stronger perfor-
mance in their left ears.
Prevalence of each ear advantage was markedly different be-
tween the two tests used in this study. If more children were right
hemisphere dominant for language, LEA prevalence should also
have been higher than expected when the same children were
tested with the RDDT, but it was not. It is possible that the higher
NEA prevalence seen in the oldest age group with dichotic digits
may have reduced their LEA prevalence, but it could equally have
reduced the REA prevalence. Because digits represent a closed set
of highly learned verbal stimuli, they may fail to engage the lan-
guage-dominant hemisphere as effectively as single syllable words
and thereby lower the relative advantage in the contralateral ear so
that no ear advantage results, especially among older children
whose verbal working memory skills are likely to be more
developed.
Trends toward a more prevalent REA with increasing age led to
theories that hemispheric lateralization stabilizes as children
mature and experience language (Asbjørnsen & Helland, 2006;
Kershner & Morton, 1990). Other researchers reported that the
REA remained constant across age (Berlin et al., 1973; Bryden & Al-
lard, 1981; Morris et al., 1984). LEA prevalence with dichotic words
remained stable at approximately 25% across the 3 age groups but
there was a significant confound of gender in these results. With
age, REA prevalence increased among females and decreased
among males. This suggests that there may be a greater influence
of gender on dichotic listening with single syllable words than pre-
viously thought which does not appear to have the same impact on
dichotic listening with digits. The increase in NEA prevalence with
digits may have also lowered REA or LEA prevalence among the
oldest group of children. The 2-pairs condition of the RDDT draws
more heavily on verbal working memory resources because during
presentation of the 2 pairs, the listener is uncertain if a third pair
will be presented (Strouse & Wilson, 1999). That circumstance
may tax working memory more for younger children and lead to
larger ear differences. Weaknesses in verbal working memory
may have contributed to the instability of ear advantages observed
with RDDT testing among the youngest children in the study. By
age 7, improvements in working memory may have led to stronger,
321
balanced performance in the two ears for this closed set of highly
familiar stimuli.
Results from this study are consistent with reports that younger
children produce larger ear advantages whether tested with digits
or words, especially when the magnitude of the ear advantage is
calculated without regard to its direction toward the right or left
ear. It is possible that a larger ear advantage is a more distinguish-
ing characteristic of immature dichotic listening skills than its
rightward or leftward direction. Weaknesses in attention or verbal
working memory can reduce performance during dichotic listening
tasks in ways that may be highly variable among younger children.
A structural explanation for a larger ear advantage is that transmis-
sion of auditory information from the non-dominant ear to the lan-
guage dominant ipsilateral hemisphere via the corpus callosum
may be weak or compromised (Morton, 1994; Swanson & Cochran,
1991), possibly due to less myelination in the immature brain. An-
other possible factor for weakness in the non-dominant ear is
greater suppression from the dominant ear, like the suppression
reported in the visual system in individuals with amblyopia or
‘‘lazy eye.’’ This could lead to a similar auditory dysfunction char-
acterized by normal performance in the child’s dominant ear to-
gether with significantly reduced performance in the non-
dominant or ‘‘lazy’’ ear, thereby producing a larger than normal
ear advantage. This auditory disorder has been termed ‘‘amblyau-
dia’’ (Moncrieff, 2010). A recent study that reported disrupted
auditory patterning from suppression by the open ear following
surgically induced unilateral conductive hearing loss in rats re-
ferred to this phenomenon as ‘‘amblyaudio’’ (Popescu & Polley,
2010). The large ear advantage in some children with amblyaudia
has been reduced with treatment, suggesting that interaural asym-
metries during dichotic listening can be modified with specific
auditory training (Moncrieff & Wertz, 2008).
Age-related reductions in ear advantage in this study together
with effects of training on lowering abnormally high ear advanta-
ges suggest that smaller differences between the two ears during
dichotic listening tests may be a hallmark of maturity and en-
hanced auditory processing. Normative data for degrees and direc-
tions of ear advantages during dichotic tasks among younger
children could improve clinical diagnosis of auditory processing
weaknesses in this vulnerable population that is currently under-
served by clinical audiologists and lead to earlier interventions. Re-
sults from this study do not fully resolve the question of whether
direction of ear advantage is innate or modifiable with experience.
It appears that the answer may depend upon the nature of the
dichotic stimulus and the gender of the listener. Results from this
322 D.W. Moncrieff / Brain and Cognition 76 (2011) 316–322
study do demonstrate that despite the variability of results and the
interactions of gender and handedness seen with digits testing,
children below the age of 7 years can perform these dichotic listen-
ing tests and that normative data from children within this youn-
gest age group can and should be measured. They also suggest that
normative information about ear advantage without regard to left
and right directions may prove more useful for purposes of clinical
diagnosis and intervention in this population.
References
Annett, M. (1970). Classification of hand preference by association analysis. British
Journal of Psychology, 61, 303–321.
Asbjørnsen, A. E., & Helland, T. (2006). Dichotic listening performance predicts
language comprehension. Laterality, 11(3), 251–262.
Berlin, C. I., Hughes, L. F., Lowe-Bell, S. S., & Berlin, H. L. (1973). Dichotic right ear
advantage in children 5 to 13. Cortex, 9, 394–401.
Broadbent, D. E. (1954). The role of auditory localization in attention and memory
span. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 191–196.
Bryden, M. P. (1970). Laterality effects in dichotic listening: Relations with
handedness and reading ability in children. Neuropsychologia, 8, 443–450.
Bryden, M. P., & Allard, F. A. (1981). Do auditory perceptual asymmetries develop?
Cortex, 17, 313–318.
Fennell, E. B., Satz, P., & Morris, R. (1983). The development of handedness and
dichotic listening asymmetries in relation to school achievement: a longitudinal
study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35(2), 248–262.
Geffen, G. (1976). Development of hemispheric specialization for speech perception.
Cortex, 12, 337–346.
Goodglass, H., & Qtjadfasel, F. A. (1954). Language laterality in left-handed aphasics.
Brain, 77, 521–548.
Helland, T., & Asbjornsen, A. (2001). Brain asymmetry for language in dyslexic
children. Laterality, 6(4), 289–301.
Hiscock, M., Inch, R., & Ewing, C. T. (2005). Constant and variable aspects of the
dichotic listening right-ear advantage: A comparison of standard and signal
detection tasks. Laterality, 10(6), 517–534.
Katz, J., Basil, R. A., & Smith, J. M. (1963). A staggered spondaic word test for
detecting central auditory lesions. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology,
72,908–917.
Kershner, J. R., & Morton, L. L. (1990). Directed attention dichotic listening in
reading disabled children: a test of four models of maladaptive lateralization.
Neuropsychologia, 28(2), 181–198.
Kimura, D. (1961). Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli.
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 15, 166–171.
Kimura, D. (1963). Speech lateralization in young children as determined by an
auditory test. Journal of Comparative Physiology and Psychology, 56, 899–902.
Larsen, S. (1984). Developmental changes in the pattern of ear asymmetry as
revealed by a dichotic listening task. Cortex, 20(1), 5–17.
Martínez, J. A., & Sánchez, E. (1995). Dichotic listening CV lateralization and
developmental dyslexia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
21(4), 519–534.
Moncrieff, D. W. (2004). Identification of binaural integration deficits in children
with the Competing Words Subtest: standard score versus interaural
asymmetry. International Journal of Audiology, 45(9), 546–558.
Moncrieff, D. W. (2010). Amblyaudia: Evidence of indistinct processing of auditory
information in children. Presentation at the American Auditory Society annual
meeting, Scottsdale, AZ, March.
Moncrieff, D. W., & Black, J. R. (2008). Dichotic listening deficits in children with
dyslexia. Dyslexia, 14(1), 54–75.
Moncrieff, D. W., & Musiek, F. E. (2002). Interaural asymmetries revealed by dichotic
listening tests in normal and dyslexic children. Journal of the American Academy
of Audiology, 13(8), 428–437.
Moncrieff, D. W., & Wertz, D. (2008). Auditory rehabilitation for interaural
asymmetry: preliminary evidence of improved dichotic listening
performance following intensive training. International Journal of Audiology,
47(2), 84–97.
Moncrieff, D. W., & Wilson, R. H. (2009). Recognition of randomly presented one-,
two-, and three-pair dichotic digits by children and young adults. Journal of the
American Academy of Audiology, 20, 58–70.
Morris, R., Bakker, D., Satz, P., & van der Vlugt, H. (1984). Dichotic listening ear
asymmetry: patterns of longitudinal development. Brain and Language, 22(1),
49–66.
Morton, L. L. (1994). Interhemispheric balance patterns detected by selective
phonemic dichotic laterality measures in four clinical subtypes of reading-
disabled children. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 16(4),
556–567.
Morton, L. L., & Siegel, L. S. (1991). Left ear dichotic listening performance on
consonant-vowel combinations and digits in subtypes of reading-disabled
children. Brain and Language, 40(2), 162–180.
Musiek, F. E. (1983). Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: The dichotic digit
test revisited. Ear and Hearing, 4(2), 79–83.
Neijenhuis, K., Snik, A., & van den Broek, P. (2003). Auditory processing disorders in
adults and children: evaluation of a test battery. International Journal of
Audiology, 42(7), 391–400.
Obrzut, J. E., Conrad, P. F., & Boliek, C. A. (1989). Verbal and nonverbal auditory
processing among left- and right-handed good readers and reading-disabled
children. Neuropsychologia, 27(11–12), 1357–1371.
Popescu, M. V., & Polley, D. B. (2010). deprivation disrupts development of binaural
selectivity in auditory midbrain and cortex. Neuron, 65(5), 718–731.
Strouse, A., & Wilson, R. H. (1999). Stimulus length uncertainty with dichotic
digit recognition. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10(4),
219–229.
Swanson, H. L., & Cochran, K. F. (1991). Learning disabilities, distinctive encoding,
and hemispheric resources. Brain and Language, 40(2), 202–230.