Talk:Auditory integration training

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Disability (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Auditory integration training is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Autism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Auditory integration training is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untested[edit]

AIT is highly controversial and has not been fully approved by the US FDA.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.160.196 (talkcontribs). 20 July 2005

AIT has never had double-blind testing in the fourteen years or so that it has been "experimental" (SIcTR Review No. 23, Vol 5, 23-28ff). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.12.240 (talkcontribs) 2006-10-30

I take the above comments to mean that the article currently is not neutral, in that it spends a lot of time describing AIT and claming that it is "evident", but very little time noting that there's not sufficient scientific evidence to support its use. After reading the article for the first time today, I agree. Good sources for re-editing this article seem to be the ASHA technical report and Sinha et al. 2006. Does anyone know of other sources? Eubulides (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I made many changes in an attempt to make the article more neutral, and to rely on high-quality sources. I removed the stuff about music therapy in general, as it was unsourced, duplicative of other articles, poorly written, and not that relevant. Eubulides (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC

Scientific references reviewing AIT:

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Children With Disabilities. (1998). Auditory Integration Training and Facilitated Communication for Autism. Pediatrics, 102(2), pp. 431-433.

Working Group in AIT (2004). "Auditory integration training: technical report" (PDF). ASHA Suppl (24): 96–102. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.

Sinha Y, Silove N, Wheeler D, Williams K. (2006) Auditory integration training and other sound therapies for autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child. 91(12):1018-22.

Mudford, O.C. and Cullen, C. (2005) Auditory integration training: a critical review. In: Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: fads, fashion and science in professional practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005, pp. 351-362.

Mudford OC, Cross BA, Breen S, Cullen C, Reeves D, Gould J, Douglas J. Auditory integration training for children with autism: no behavioral benefits detected. Am J Ment Retard 2000 Mar;105(2):118-129.

I have undergone AIT recently. I have stopped my Vyvance and Stratera medication ever since and I feel much better than ever before. Also i think that you should reference 3 books (soon to be 4) by Annabel Stehli. ToaDjango —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

Unsourced and promotional changes[edit]

These edits had some problems:

  • They inserted text ", autistic-like behaviors ,Pervasive developmental delay, Attention deficit disorder , dyslexia, learning disabilities ,other non-specific hearing sensitivities (hyperacusis)" that is not mentioned or supported by the cited source.
  • They inserted two paragraphs about the early 1990s that (a) are not cited, and (b) present a misleading summary of the research into AIT. Early research showed some promise, but later studies showed that it didn't pan out, and the Wikipedia article should not emphasize the former over the later.
  • They inserted an unsourced section The Efficacy of Auditory Integration Training:.
  • They inserted several links that appear to promote the business of AIT; see WP:LINKSPAM for why these are not appropriate here.

More generally, we need reliable sources here. Please see WP:MEDRS and WP:RS for what constitutes reliable sources in the context of Wikipedia. In the meantime, I reverted the change. Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Further edits on 2009-02-02[edit]

These further edits, by a different Wikipedia user, had some problems as well:

  • They introduced the claim "It has been used for over 40 years by now and sounds to have been beneficial to those with autism" but the cited source does not support either the "40 years" nor the "beneficial to those with autism" parts of the claim.
  • They reintroduced the claim about PDD, ADD, etc., but (again) the cited source does not support this claim.
  • They removed well-sourced critical material citing reliable sources that include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New York Dept. of Health, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, and the FDA.
  • They added a large quantity of unsourced material and testimonials about an autistic child who improved dramatically and eventually got a Ph.D., etc.
  • They removed a wikilink to Autism.
  • They reinserted the several business-promotion links noted in my previous comments.

Also, please don't switch from one user to another to make edits like these; I have opened a new page WP:Sockpuppet investigations/EarCareCenter on that issue. Eubulides (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No further comment and the article was in fairly sad shape, so I made this change to try to repair things as best I could. Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Further edits on 2009-02-03[edit]

These further edits have serious problems:

  • They again introduced unsourced claims about ADD, PDD, dyslexia, etc.
  • They introduced duplicate material about the history of AIT. There's no reason to repeat this stuff; it's already discussed in Auditory integration training #History.
  • They introduced text that is sourced only by commercial advertisement. This is not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense (see WP:MEDRS).
  • They changed a header from "Lack of evidence" to "Old theory said:" for material that discusses a paper published in 2006, and introduced a new section talking about efficacy referring to work published in the 1990s. This seriously misrepresents the evidence. There were early promising studies, but later work found no significant evidence in favor of AIT. The Wikipedia article should not emphasize the early, preliminary work in favor of the later, more definitive work.
  • There is a continuing problem here of editors adding unsourced, poorly sourced, or duplicative material, without discussion. I suggest discussing controversial changes like these first, on the talk page.

Eubulides (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I made this edit to try to address the above problems, while trying to keep the improvements made in the latest set of edits. Eubulides (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Request For Knowlegeable Contributors[edit]

In checking the history of this page it is clear that the desire to have a clean scientific layout has taken preference over the factual accuracy of the content. Eubulides as a frequent contributor has shown a fine grasp of the layout requirement, but of less so of the actual facts around AIT, and it should be mentioned that that despite the awards for frequent (or relentless) edits, Eubulides does not know this topic!

Please can we stay with contributions of high standard but which will provide the full picture of AIT, not only to post the negatively biased one-sided views of one contributor!
To maintain a high quality of entry, and maintain Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source of free information, at least let's call for insider information... let it be obvious that the contributor is at the very least a trained and practising practitioner, and preferably an international trainer or committee member! OK?

Jvanr (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Expert editors are of course welcome, as they have obvious advantages in familiarity with a subject and in locating sources, but it's Wikipedia policy that articles must be properly sourced, and that an expert editor's own opinion does not count as a source. For more on this subject, please see WP:NOR and WP:V. Eubulides (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Further Edits on 2009-02-12/13[edit]

  • Comment claims own source as reliable and intriduced source as unreliable without explanation of what make it so.
  • Comment claims parent stories were quoted to prove efficacy, which is a misrepresentation of the purpose which was clear from the context in which it was used.
  • The proclaimed reputable medical publisher is also misinformed and errors are introduced into the entry by failing to cross-check the facts with knowlegeable authors.
  • Comment and revisions continue to reveal strong negative bias and poor factual base.
  • changing the number from 1 to 2 KHz is correct since it is written in Dr Berard's own specifications for the building of the devices, which will be more reliable than the Mudford reference.
  • The sources preferred by the editor being medical have erroneously used medical terminolgy to describe AIT related matters, e.g. 'therapy', 'treat', 'hyper-acusis'. All knowlegeable practitioners would avoid this error.
  • The editor continues to rate preferred and own sources as 'of higher quality' than the more accurate but non-preferred sources of information, written by people actually practising this method and therefore more reliable and accurate.
  • the persistent introduction of errors into this article serve to create mis-information that mislead.Jvanr (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "unreliable without explanation of what make it so" For what constitutes reliable sources in Wikipedia, see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. I'd rather not repeat those general guidelines here.
  • "Comment claims parent stories were quoted" Sorry, I don't know what this refers to. The word "parent" appears nowhere else on this talk page.
  • "changing the number from 1 to 2 KHz is correct since it is written in Dr Berard's own specifications for the building of the devices" The current version of the text sidesteps this issue by saying "low- and high-pass filtering".
  •  :* "The proclaimed reputable medical publisher is also misinformed"; "The sources preferred by the editor being medical have erroneously used medical terminolgy to describe AIT related matters"; etc. These are reliable sources on the subject of AIT. Sinha et al. 2006 (PMID 16887860) is published in the peer-reviewed journal Archives of Disease in Childhood. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association AIT working group technical report (PDF) is published by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, a respected professional organization. Mudford & Cullen 2005 (from ISBN 080584192X) is published by the respectable academic publisher Routledge. Wikipedia's job is to reflect mainstream opinion like this, regardless of whether individual editors consider it misinformed.
Eubulides (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Further edits on 2009-02-12/13[edit]

The followup change installed into this article has several problems:

  • It introduced unreliable source into the lead, namely Edelson & Rimland 2001, in order to dispute a reliable secondary source, namely Mudford & Cullen 2004 (in ISBN 080584192X). It also overly emphasized the same source in the body, for the same purpose. As per WP:MEDRS, a self-published advocacy website is less reliable than an edited book published by a reputable medical publisher; and this article should not use less-reliable sources to dispute or impeach more-reliable ones.
  • It introduced an unreliable source, the AIT institute's web page, on the efficacy of AIT. As per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS these sorts of sources are not reliable.
  • Similarly for Rathaille 2002 and Seymour & Rathaille (undated). These are all self-published.
  • It introduced one reliable source into the lead, namely Sinha et al. 2006 (PMID 16887860), but reported only its minor conclusion (no significant adverse effects) without reporting its major conclusion (insufficient evidence to support AIT's use).
  • It introduced POV wording like "Despite", "Although", "carefully spaced", "purpoted", "it should be noted", "in fact", "supports the common experience" that are not supported by the cited sources, but are interpolation of the Wikipedia editor. As per WP:NPOV, we should avoid wording like that.
  • It inserted quote marks around "insufficient evidence", which attempts to cast doubt on a reliable source.
  • It inserted the following claims that are supported only by a self-published book, "Autism Options Galore!" As per WP:RS, self-published books are not reliable.
  • "originally the Audiokinetron but now more frequently the Earducator the DAA, or a computer-based delivery system called Filtered Sound Training"
  • Also, it changed some numbers in minor ways, presumably favoring the Galore source over Mudford & Cullen.
  • It inserted the following claims that are not supported by sources.
  • "train rather than treat"
  • "improve the quality of life of those with autism"
  • "This intervention is not to be viewed as a therapy, but a training procedure (although the medical profession continually refers to it as therapy)."
  • "it is still being tested for its safety"
  • "This device has largely been replaced by a variety of devices. AIT practitioners make no claims of medical benefit,but focus on its wellness and educational benefits, and therefore AIT does not fall under the remit of the FDA."
  • "painful hearing"
  • "However it should be noted that this review combined all kinds of diverse auditory techniques together for the purpose of evaluation, thereby including AIT with other auditory techniques that have no research basis."
  • "that support the common experience that there tend to be improvements in areas relevant to development and progress"
  • It cites a book by Stehli to support claims about the accomplishments of Stehli. Again, Stehli is not a reliable source for her own accomplishments.
  • It mentions a number of other unreliable books in the main text. I'm sure that we could mention dozens of anecdotal stories about the effectiveness of AIT, but the article should not use a high quantity of low-quality sources in order to drown out the high-quality sources that it does have.

I installed a further edit to try to address the above problems. Eubulides (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Further Edits by Eubulides[edit]

This editor continues to edit in an area in which expertise is not evident, thereby introducing serious errors into the entry. Insufficient infomation base , and descernable negative bias , are revealed by

  • persisting in insisting that it is a medical intervention or therapy, when it is not claimed to be this by its practitioners.
  • continuing to insist on medical standards and medical reviews when AIT is not a medical intervention.
  • Not being medical it is inaccurate to refer to AIT as 'treating' 'sensory processing problems'... this is a common mistake to make, but the encyclopedia entry shouldnt be making it.
  • insisting that misinformed medical opinions should take precedence over trained and experienced insider views.
  • References are too limited - the Mumford and Sinha works are repeatedly quoted.
  • There is no evidence of having knowlege of the other contributors to the studies, or other authors on AIT.

The editor objects to the inclusion or over-inclusion of items that he himself had introduced in an earlier edit.

  • There is too much repetition of the same negative comment through placement in several places in the article.
  • encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The sources to which Eu objects are inserted to that very end.
  • Sessions often start off with music and sounds that are familiar to the client, so they are easily recognizable. Then, gradually throughout the sessions the music and sounds become more technical and harder to discriminate. this is a serious error. Eubulides is confusing some other technique with AIT it seems.
  • Unnecessary emphasis on the FDA 'banning' the Audiokinetron, while the Audiokinetron is no longer even manufactured, neither is the BGC, and this piece of information is out of date, and irrelevant to the present status of AIT.
  • more than a little contentious to belabour the 'multimillion dollar' point? OTT?
  • Asserting that it is irrelevant for the entry to be accurate in its content - only that it should accurately summarise an erroneous mainstream point of view.

While the sources Eu prefers are inaccurate, the wiki entry should be accurate. To this end AIT-approved sources are relevant to a greater degree than Eu wants to allow. Even from a medical point of view, one must inform the public, not mislead the public who are the readers of Wikipedia. Jvanr (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Again, the expertise of individual editors isn't relevant as to whether the text is appropriate to Wikipedia. What counts is whether the text accurately summarizes reliable sources; please see WP:V and WP:RS.
  • U.S. practitioners of AIT state that it is an educational intervention and not a medical intervention, so that they don't run afoul of FDA regulations for the claims made for the therapy. However, this legal maneuver is largely irrelevant to the central question of whether AIT has high-quality evidence for its effectiveness. Certainly there are reliable sources that classify AIT as medical interventions (which may be more appropriate for the worldwide perspective that Wikipedia is supposed to have). For example, Developmental-behavioral Pediatrics: Evidence and Practice (ISBN 032304025X) lists it in page 269 of its "Treatment and Management" section. It would make sense to cover this dispute about whether AIT is medical or educational, but we'd need a reliable source on the topic.
  • WP:WEIGHT says that this article should be written from the mainstream viewpoint, with due weight given to minority viewpoints. This means that it's perfectly OK, in fact it's desirable, for the article to cite the minority viewpoint in some places, but it's not OK to over-cite the non-mainstream view.
  • Not just any source will do. Sources must be reliable; please see WP:RS. As a general rule, self-published sources are not reliable.
Eubulides (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Following up after further edits to Jvanr's comments above:
  • It is not a question about what AIT's practitioners claim in the U.S., or about what trained and experienced insiders say. It is a question about what reliable sources say. Wikipedia's text must be supported by reliable sources; see WP:RS.
  • Thanks for fixing the "sensory processing problems"; that wording has been there for a long time (predating my editing) without being fixed.
  • Agreed that it would be helpful to cite "other authors on AIT", assuming that these are reliable sources.
  • "There is too much repetition of the same negative comment through placement in several places in the article." WP:LEAD says that the lead should summarize the rest of the article; necessarily this means that a point in the lead will be repeated in the body.
  • "The sources to which Eu objects are inserted to that very end." Not just any source will do; the source must be reliable, in the sense of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.
  • "Sessions often start off with music and sounds that are familiar to the client" Again, thanks for correcting that error, which also predates my editing.
  • "Unnecessary emphasis on the FDA 'banning' the Audiokinetron" Surely this is worth covering in the lead; it's perhaps the single most notable event in the mainstream reaction to AIT.
  • "more than a little contentious to belabour the 'multimillion dollar' point? OTT?" Sorry, I don't know what "OTT" means. The multimillion dollar point is taken directly from the cited source, which certainly thought the money was notable.
  • "Asserting that it is irrelevant for the entry to be accurate in its content - only that it should accurately summarise an erroneous mainstream point of view." Wikipedia policy is to summarize a topic from the mainstream viewpoint; see WP:NPOV.
  • "AIT-approved sources are relevant to a greater degree than Eu wants to allow" They are certainly relevant, but as representatives of a minority viewpoint, they should not be given precedence over the mainstream view. See WP:WEIGHT.
  • "one must inform the public, not mislead the public" 100% agree.
Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jvanr[edit]

minority viewpoint AIT is a training offered by very few practitioners, so that those knowlegeable about it will de facto be a minority However, the experience and views of this group are relevant to the accuracy of an entry discussiong their field of expertise, over the uninformed mass majority view, surely for the purpose of an encyclopedia entry. Jvanr (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

By "minority viewpoint" I meant a minority among reliable sources, not a minority among all the people in the world. This is the standard interpretation of "minority viewpoint" in Wikipedia; see WP:WEIGHT, which says "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". Eubulides (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
We seem to have differing interpretations for the cncept of 'reliable resources', since I would seek to find sources important to AIT practitioners represented along with those of the opposing point of view - which are medical and therefore irrelevant as defining resources on AIT. Jvanr (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This article should follow the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources, discussed in WP:RS, and elaborated in WP:MEDRS for medical facts and figures. It is not a question of balancing points of view (for example, one wouldn't "balance" the flat-earth viewpoint with the earth-is-round viewpoint); it is a question of finding the most-reliable sources that represent mainstream opinion. AIT makes claims that it is a treatment for conditions such as dyslexia, autism, etc. Reliable medical sources are desirable for the discussion of such claims, even if AIT practitioners say (for legal reasons) that AIT is not a medical treatment. Eubulides (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit on 2009-02-14[edit]

This 2009-02-14 edit has some problems:

  • It replaced "treat auditory processing disorders" with "improve listening skills". This change is debatable, but the cited source (Mudford & Cullen 2004, in ISBN 080584192X) doesn't define AIT by its goals, it defines AIT by what it is. This is a better way of going about it.
  • It removed the citation to Mudford & Cullen 2004 (in ISBN 080584192X). This is a reliable source, published in a medical textbook put out by a reputable medical publisher. Please don't remove reliable sources like that, unless they can be replaced by even better sources.
  • It replaced "Several claims have been made for it, including claims that it can greatly benefit those with autism." with "There are reports that it can benefit those with autism". But the cited source (Mudford & Cullen) state that Berard made claims of "very positive results" for dyslexia, depression, and so forth; for example, he wrote that 233 cases of "depression, suidical tendencies" were "cured after first course of treatment". Mudford & Cullen go on to state that there's no peer-reviewed scientific research to back these claims. All this should be noted.
  • It removed the text that Sinha et al. 2006 (PMID 16887860) "found insufficient evidence to support its use". But this is the main point of that review, which is a reliable source; it should not be ignored.
  • It replaced "AIT does not meet scientific standards for efficacy and safety that would justify its inclusion as a mainstream treatment." with "While AIT is not a medical intervention nor a therapy". But the cited source, Working Group in AIT 2004 (PDF), directly supported the old text, saying "Despite approximately one decade of practice in this country, this method has not met scientific standards for efficacy and safety that would justify its inclusion as a mainstream treatment for these disorders." The cited source does not at all support the new text.
  • It removed the well-sourced text "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has banned the Audiokinetron, the original device used to perform AIT, from importation into the U.S. due to lack of evidence of medical benefit."
  • It added the unsourced and dubious text "while reports of its efficacy in this area favour its inclusion."
  • It replaced "hyper-acute hearing" with "painful hearing". The common technical term is "hyperacusis" (oversensitive hearing), and the article should use the common term.
  • It moved the following text to the Evidence basis section:
"An early 1990s study of the efficacy of AIT in autism was promising, and additional studies also showed positive effects."
citing Edelson & Rimland 2001. However, this older study was self-published and not peer-reviewed, and is not currently a reliable source by the standards of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. The older study is relevant for the history section, but not for the current evidence basis.
  • It inserted the unsourced text "with the Georgiana Institute".
  • It inserted the unsourced text "and to the world. AIT is practiced in many countries, and the numbers of practitioners continue to grow."
  • It removed the well-sourced text "The latter book provided wide publicity to AIT in the English-speaking world. By 1994, over 10,000 U.S. children and adults had received training, at a cost of around US$1000 to US$1300 each, and AIT became a multimillion dollar industry." The source is Mudford & Cullen.

I made this change to try to fix the above problems. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerning New Edits 14.02.09[edit]

Since you wish to disallow the use of sources that give the true facts of AIT, but will allow only quotes from two error-filled sources of your own choosing, the likelihood of having cited sources to support the facts is diminished.

It is common to include sources that are highly regarded by the discipline under discussion as well as counter-argumentative sources, to provide a fuller understanding and avoid undue bias.
If you will only admit the publications of the partially-informed or incorrectly-informed commentator and ignore the publications of the highly-informed experienced practitioners, your input into this article must understandably be biased and reveal lack of knowlege to the informed reader.
Also, the fact that you continue to try to frame AIT in medical terms and judge it solely by medico-scientific standards further adds to the negative bias and error-base of the article as it stands.

It is common to use some of the vocabulary employed by a discipline while describing or explaining that discipline. Thus

  • 'hyper-acute hearing' is an inappropriate medical reference, while the the term 'painful hearing' is more common in Berard's book, which you do allow.
  • ' training' should replace 'treatment' which is a medical term.
  • 'therapy' is a medical term... and so on...
  • Since you deem the first Study by Edelson to be too old, you might see fit to allow the inclusion of the later, peer-reviewed and larger study.
  • A history of AIT is seriously incomplete without including the Georgiana Institute. This information is in Berards book as well as the Stehli book, both of which you included / allowed.
  • It wasn't the Autism Research Institute, but Dr Bernard Rimland of the Institute, who promoted information on AIT.
  • What Rimland did was equalled if not exceeded by the role of the Stehli's and the Georgiana Institute in bringing AIT to the USA and internationally - this is quoted in the book 'Dancing in the Rain' which you disallow - leading to erroneous statements. This should be corrected.
  • 'AIT practitioners from around the world' is cited in the Stehli book which you wish to exclude.
  • Your attempt to have the cost of AIT included is inappropriate and serves the existing negative bias of your edits... it is also a false statement quoted from an unfactual source albeit one you favour. AIT costs vary greatly. Please note that as an international method, costs and circumstances vary greatly, a fact Mudford failed to mention.
  • The use of the words 'multi-million dollar industry' again favours the negative bias - picture this applied to the medical or dental profession to understand this objection.
  • YOU COMMENT THAT it ...replaced "treat auditory processing disorders" with "improve listening skills". This change is debatable, but the cited source (Mudford & Cullen 2004, in ISBN 080584192X) doesn't define AIT by its goals, it defines AIT by what it is. This is a better way of going about it
- firstly that it is a better way would be your own opinion.
- secondly it does not say what AIT is at all, but is a different way of saying what it does. This argument of the point is not following logical reasoning.
Also, this again attempts to favour medico-terminology for this non-medical training.

LETS TALK ABOUT THIS ATTEMPT TO FORCE THE VIEW THAT AIT HAS MEDICAL STATUS: To clearly understand we an use an analogy - just because exercise makes your heart race and alters the metabolic rate - is gymnastics a medical intervention? Does the fact that doctors study exercise make gymnastics a medical intervention? Is it a medical procedure to sit pedalling on an exercise bike for 15 minutes? Should we invite the FDA to seize bicycles until they are proven 'safe'?

Those who know about AIT assert AIT is a training method which seeks to improve the quality of life of the user

your allegation about AIT attempting to dodge the FDA by avoiding medical terms is unnecessarily contentious ... our argument is - why seek to go medical when we are not a medical intervention any more than any other training exercise regimen?
  • Given this point then, the entry you propose about the FDA is far from the significant to the present-day status of AIT in the USA.
  • Since the FDA is cited as saying there is no evidence of medical benefit, and the AIT practitioners confirm this is not a medical intervention, it is hard to see the relevance of all the inclusion of medical references and medical terminology into this article.
  • If the FDA and the Kinetron is mentioned one has to go on to explain more fully about the lack of relevance of the restrictions to the other devices... and so on, and the article just becomes unnecessarily long.
  • There are advisements in the WP protocol against using the word 'claim' as you do since it expresses ones own opinions and attempts to discredit .

Since we appear to be concerned about the same topic, I would be glad to coninue to work with you to hone this article until satisfactory.Jvanr (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • What matters here most is getting the best and most reliable sources. Generally speaking, the best sources will be recently published reviews in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals. High-quality academic textbooks are also good, though not quite as good. I just now did my bit by adding a citation to Weiss et al. 2009 (doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09530-1_10).
  • There is no reason to exclude medical sources here.
  • The term "hyperacusis" is far more common among reliable sources on AIT than the term "painful hearing" is. It's used, for example, in Kozlowski et al. 2004 (PMID 15645073), Accordino et al. 2007 (doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2006.08.002), and Levy & Hyman 2005 (PMID 15977319), when each of these sources discuss AIT. These sources do not use the terminology "painful hearing". This article should use standard terminology when available.
  • Likewise for "treatment". Reliable sources such as Levy & Hyman say that AIT is a "treatment"; we should not censor this.
  • The text does not say "therapy", so I don't know why that word is being brought up here.
  • I am not aware of any study by Edelson on the topic that is newer than Edelson & Rimland 2001. That study is pretty dated, and anyway is not peer-reviewed; it should not be used when we have more recent and more reliable sources, which we do.
  • It would certainly be OK to mention the role of the Georgiana Institute, but we need a reliable source to do that. Self-published sources (e.g., their website or their book) are not reliable. Come to think of it, the stuff about Rimland isn't reliably sourced either, so I removed that. That all predates my edits; thanks for mentioning it.
  • "'AIT practitioners from around the world'" Sorry, I don't know what this refers to.
  • "Your attempt to have the cost of AIT included is inappropriate" That information is taken directly from the cited source, which prominently mentioned the cost as an issue.
  • "AIT costs vary greatly." I'm sure that's true, but we can't say that in the article without citing a reliable source about AIT that discusses the matter.
  • "The use of the words 'multi-million dollar industry' again favours the negative bias" I don't see why; many people see a large dollar figure as being a positive thing. Larger industries reflect popularity, etc.
  • "firstly that it is a better way would be your own opinion" It's not just my opinion; we have a reliable source that does it that way. Also, WP:LEAD says that the lead sentence should be a "concise definition".
  • "secondly it does not say what AIT is at all" Sorry, I don't follow this point. A concise definition should say what AIT is.
  • "your allegation about AIT attempting to dodge the FDA by avoiding medical terms is unnecessarily contentious" It's contentious, but it's not unnecessarily contentious. It helps to explain why it's important that the FDA action be mentioned here.
  • "There are advisements in the WP protocol against using the word 'claim' as you do since it expresses ones own opinions" I assume this comment is referring to my use of the word "claim" on the talk page. It is perfectly acceptable to express personal opinions on the talk page about what should go into the article. The goal is to avoid personal opinions in the article, not in the talk page.
Eubulides (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to Comments By Eubulides - New Major Edit It would too difficult to list the edits individually - so will say that I did a major overhaul , to overcome problems of excessive repetition of entries, and fragmentation of threads of description.

Continuing the edits to correct inaccuracies and errors that continue to be introduced despite correction.
  • I have placed the historical items together under 'history'
  • It doesnt make sense to mention the DAA but exclude the Earducator.
  • Adding the relevant references and authors to complete the information and
  • Balance the entry since strong negative POV remained evident.
  • Error tending to persist of making medical assertions regarding AIT.
  • Since not medical the obsession with 'reliable' references should include the ones important to AIT not limited to the ones important to medicine.

Before entering further edits Eubulides should have discussion with meJvanr (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see #2009-02-17 edit below. Eubulides (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

2009-02-17 edit[edit]

I looked at the previous comment and the 2009-02-17 edit (since reverted) and have some further thoughts:

  • The edit inserts the claim that AIT is claimed to "improve the quality of life of those with dyslexia" and cites pages 308-309 of Overcoming Dyslexia For Dummies (ISBN 0471752851). But the source merely says "therapists stress that this method also helps dyslexics", which is doesn't say anything about quality of life. Also, Overcoming Dyslexia For Dummies is a bad source, compared to the sources we're already sourcing. It is not particularly authoritative. It contains only one sentence about what AIT is; it mostly talks about costs and insurance coverage and the like. We can, and already have, done much better than that book as a source.
  • The edit inserts the claim that AIT is good for "attention problems", citing Madell 1999. However, that is a primary source that presents only "preliminary data", and it does not directly support the claim that AIT is claimed to be good for attention problems. Also, the source is dated; we should be using newer sources if available (which they are here). Furthermore, as per WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia articles should not rely on primary sources like Madell for interpretation; it should use secondary sources (reviews, for example) for that sort of thing.
  • It inserted the NAS website as a source for the claim that AIT is claimed to be good for autism. This is just a website, but it is freely available and it's a good enough source, so I added that citation.
  • Any claims that AIT is good for dyslexia should be placed into the overall context of the mainstream opinion about the effectiveness of AIT for dyslexia. Similarly for other conditions. It does not suffice simply to say something like "AIT practitioners say AIT is good for dyslexia" without also saying, with proper weight, what the mainstream opinion of using AIT for dyslexia is. This is a Wikipedia article and as such should emphasize mainstream opinion as per WP:WEIGHT; it should not promote minority views.
  • It inserts the unsourced text "While practitioners do not make medical claims for this training" in order to undercut the discussion about effectiveness. The cited source (Sinha et al. 2006, PMID 16887860) does not directly support this text.
  • It inserts the unsourced text "AIT has been studied by the medical profession, who question whether it meets scientific standards".
  • It removes the well-sourced text stating that Berard promoted AIT "as a cure for depression and suicidal tendencies, along with what he said were very positive results for autism and dyslexia. AIT became popular in the early 1990s as a treatment for autism.", citing Mudford & Cullen 2005.
  • It removes the well-sourced text stating "A 2006 review found insufficient evidence to support its use for autism", citing Sinha et al.
  • It removes the well-sourced text "AIT does not meet scientific standards for efficacy and safety that would justify its inclusion as a mainstream treatment.", sourced by the Working group in AIT 2004.
  • It removes the well-sourced text "the New York State Department of Health recommends that it not be used to treat young children with autism.", citing the same source.
  • It removes the well-sourced text "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned the Audiokinetron, the original device used to perform AIT, from importation into the U.S. due to lack of evidence of medical benefit." citing Mudford & Cullen.
  • OK, that's it for the lead. The following changes were made to the body.
  • It removes the well-sourced text "The original device for delivering this training, the Audiokinetron or Ears Education and Retraining System (EERS), was banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from importation into the U.S. due to lack of evidence of medical benefit. Several other devices are now used to deliver AIT; one example is the Digital Auditory Aerobics (DAA) system, which replaced the Audiokinetron in the U.S., and which contains 20 half-hour CDs containing the output of the Audiokinetron. Although no AIT device has been approved for marketing as a medical device by the FDA, devices used only to aid education are not subject to FDA regulation." citing Mudford & Cullen 2005 and the Working group in AIT 2004.
  • It changes "Most" to "Some" in "Most AIT practitioners are speech pathologists or audiologists". The cited source (Working Group in AIT 2004) says "the majority of practitioners are speech-language pathologists or audiologists".
  • It removed the well-sourced text "A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of AIT found insufficient evidence to support its use; no significant adverse effects were reported", citing Sinha et al.
  • Instead, it substituted claims "There are studies and reports that list improvements in areas relevant to development and progress.... Opinion is divided as to whether research has found sufficient evidence to support the use of AIT.", citing Edelson & Rimland 2001. This is a self-published web page and as per WP:RS is not reliable. We should be using reliable peer-reviewed journal articles such as Sinha et al.
  • It removed the well-sourced text "Several professional organizations state that AIT should be considered experimental: these include the American Academy of Audiology, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Educational Audiology Association. After reviewing the available research, the New York State Department of Health concluded that AIT's efficacy had not been shown, and recommended that it not be used to treat young children with autism.", supported by the Working Group in AIT 2004.
  • It introduced the unsourced text "Bérard's Auditory Integration Training in North America was first introduced in Canada by Gerard Binet in Montreal", and resurrected a bunch of text and unreliable sources that has already been discussed above, without further commentary here. It does not suffice simply to edit-war changes in: you need to discuss each controversial change.
  • Generally speaking, the changes proposed are significantly for the worse. They promote unreliable website sources, obsolete articles, self-published books, and the like, and they remove or discount peer-reviewed journal articles. This article should be based on reliable sources, not low-quality ones.
  • Rather than make wholesale changes all at once, I suggest proposing a new version of the article one paragraph at a time, on the talk page. We can then discuss it and see where that takes us. Trying to rewrite the whole article all at once is clearly not working.

Eubulides (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Explaination of Edits 20.02.09[edit]

I made various edits to once again correct for the overly negative bias, and erroneous medical emphasis of previous edits.

  • note the changes to the placement of comments - all references to history are placed under the heading history - likewise all references to Training regimen are placed together under this heading - this was to correct for overly fragmented lines of thought.
  • returned references of value to AIT to balance the POV bias and medical sameness ... Note the FDA acknowlegement that AIT devices (DAA) now in use are out of its scope being of educational relevance, not medical.
  • Insistence on preferred citations as being superior when they are also erroneous and medically biased is inappropriate.

I will agree to working one paragraph at a time - would you look at what I've done to the header entry and comment before shredding it? Jvanr (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Let's work on the proposed edits here first. Please don't continue to install those edits against consensus. Just put a draft of the 1st paragraph here. I started by reverting that change. Now let's discuss it, one paragraph at a time. Please try to be specific in comments.
  • Looking at the first paragraph of the big change you installed, I see several problems:
  • It adds the text "attempts to train listening skills for a better perception of speech and sound in general, in children and adults" without any source. Every line of text needs a reliable source.
  • It removed the well-sourced claim that Berard promoted AIT "as a cure for depression and suicidal tendencies, along with what he said were very positive results for dyslexia and autism. AIT became popular in the early 1990s as a treatment for autism.". The source is Mudford & Cullen 2005 (in ISBN 080584192X).
  • It removed the well-sourced claim "A 2006 review found insufficient evidence to support its use for autism, and reported no significant adverse effects." citing Sinha et al. 2006 (PMID 16887860).
  • It used a relatively unreliable source, Overcoming Dyslexia For Dummies, to support the claim that some people claim that AIT helps with dyslexia. There is no need to cite this source; we can use the article's existing sources for that. Similarly for the new sources added to support claims of claims of improvement for attention.
Eubulides (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I concur with the need to use the highest quality academic sources in this article, and in this case the review study (as well as the other reviews by professional organizations involved with the care of clients involved, often medical or medically related) should be the main sources used here. I note that Jvanr has a significant conflict of interest here, being a AIT trainer and having been involved in the development of some related hardware, per his/her talkpage. I also note that the argument that this is not a medical topic has significant implications given the FDA involvement/interest in the past in banning one of the AIT devices on the basis that it was. For reference purposes I will also add this 2005 Harvard University Press volume The Science and Fiction of Autism which may also prove a useful reference for some of the details here.--Slp1 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on First Paragraph and Edits[edit]

  • We will be needing mediation since your edits continue while you request that I not make edits.
  • Your continued insistence on the sole value of the same medical-based texts is preventing satisfactor resolution.Jvanr (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You might work towards consensus before considering mediation, Jvanr; your edits are introducing inferior sources (like the Dummies book) and prose problems as well detailed above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For information to Sandy Georgia - an independant verifiable medical source is not needed for this statement: It is also recommended by AIT practitioners as a treatment for ADHD, ADD and various other special needs.[1]. Feel free to reply here before removing valid sources. Stephenbrasil (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS, and yes, an independent source, unrelated to the subject, is needed for such a blanket statement. Please sign your entries here by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that almost any AIT practitioner you contact will agree to this. Hence it is not dubious, but rather a statement of fact. "It is also recommended by AIT practitioners as a treatment for ADHD, ADD and various other special needs."[2]. Stephenbrasil (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, AIT is educational training. Therefore it does not require only medical input. Medical input is welcomed, but this article (and every other article should not be restrained to a single channel of input). Information from a AIT practitioners perspective on a AIT informational page is valid, especially when highlighted as such. Stephenbrasil (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather weird intro[edit]

"A 2006 review found insufficient evidence to support its use for autism, and reported no significant adverse effects.[3] AIT does not meet scientific standards for efficacy and safety that would justify its inclusion as a mainstream treatment."

How comes it's not safe if there are no significant adverse effects? (That it's not efficacious is undisputed.) Xasodfuih (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You have to prove safety, even if something has no reported adverse effects if you haven't looked for them systematically through the standard process, then you can't say that they don't exist. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
So what would be standard process for proving that listening to "specially filtered and modulated music" for half hour is safe? Any assays you can suggest? I realize this his an alt-med topic and you feel negatively about it, but I find the language over the top. I can easily find some medical text saying that "ECT is safe and efficacious" (just google that sentence), even though side effects have been reported. Can you explain how ECT is to be proven safe by your standard(s)? Actually the wiki contains this "ECT is generally accepted to be relatively safe", and links to [1], which looks at case reports and says, well the side-effects were acceptable. ECT and this silliness are both somatic treatments. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
But this logic veers into original research; we report what sources say. If sources say standards for efficacy and safety haven't been met, that's what Wiki reports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize the sentence was from a source because it had no attribution. I gave it the proper subject. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, when two adjacent sentences are from the same source, the attribution is placed only after the 2nd sentence.
  • According to Working Group in AIT 2004 (PDF), the devices used, when operated by a trained AIT practitioner, reach 110 dB SPL, which is the OSHA maximum exposure level for adult exposure to occupational noise for 30 minutes (the length of an AIT session). OSHA-quality studies have never been done for childrens' ears, but children are assumed to be a greater risk due to their smaller ear canal volumes. These devices don't run full blast for an entire session, but still, this is a reasonable rationale for concern.
  • The "no sigificant adverse effects were reported" summary in Sinha et al. 2006 (PMID 16887860) is pretty much what SandyGeorgia says: of the six RCTs that met the review's criteria, 3 did not report the recording of adverse events, and 3 recorded adverse events by gathering reports by parents after the trials; presumably this rather lackadasical attitude toward adverse effects is what caused the ASHA to say that the safety hasn't been adequately demonstrated.
  • I made this further change to try to clarify things a bit. There's no need for in-text attribution about effectiveness, as no reliable source thinks AIT is effective. The safety issue seems to have been brought up only by the ASHA, so I suppose it's OK to mention their name in the text.
Eubulides (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ouch. The info about the sound level needs to go into the article. As it's currently written the wiki article makes this sound (pun intended) more/too innocuous. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not all; the article doesn't mention that after parents spend thousands of dollars on AIT, if the child ever uses headphones, the alleged benefits are lost. (Imagine telling most teenagers not to use headphones to listen to their IPODs.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hadn't heard that one. (ouch). But yes I agree that the SPL stuff should go into the article. I'll look into that later if I can squeeze some time free (and if nobody else beats me to it). Eubulides (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The prohibition of subsequent use of headphones also creates a dilemma in foreign language classrooms. And, it's hard for teens to consistently remember they can never use headphones. I'm not sure if this is discussed in reliable sources, but it's mentioned (avoid headphone use) here. (That slide includes other references, such as: Sound volume is high (85dB and higher), may damage hearing if improperly used (e.g., Rankovic et al., 1996). ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)