Talk:Auditory integration training

message: 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 (talk • contribs). 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untested

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced and promotional changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Further edits on 2009-02-02 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Further edits on 2009-02-03 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request For Knowlegeable Contributors 

message: 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 ). 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 (), 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)
thread_title:  Further edits on 2009-02-12/13 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Comment by Jvanr 

message: 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 ) 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 ). 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 () "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)
thread_title:  Edit on 2009-02-14 

message: 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 (). 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, ) 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)
thread_title:  2009-02-17 edit 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments on First Paragraph  and Edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Auditory integration training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080407005653/http://www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/EC6C8637-57F3-4AD2-AEBB-66F6BE3DEE72/0/v1TRAIT.pdf to http://www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/EC6C8637-57F3-4AD2-AEBB-66F6BE3DEE72/0/v1TRAIT.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426030812/http://aappolicy.aappublications.org:80/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;102/2/431 to http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;102/2/431
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiology Samivoelkerding (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audiology