3 ms·

Another resource: http://www.operationautismonline.org/news/how-science-and-evidence-won-out-against-auditory-integration-therapies/ http://www.operationautismo

Another resource: http://www.operationautismonline.org/news/how-science-and-evidence-won-out-against-auditory-integration-therapies/ http://www.operationautismonline.org/news/how-science-and-ev... So many of the studies (http://www.aitinstitute.org/ait_clinical_studies.htm http://www.aitinstitute.org/ait_clinical_studies.htm) seem to have small sample sizes or other issues (e.g. some have no control group). I'd love to see a large, well designed study to convincingly show the scientific validity or lack thereof of AIT, at least for people on the Autism Spectrum. Draw your own conclusions from the studies that exist and the reviews. Based on those, to me, it doesn't sound promising. Edit: typo, small content changes

loceng 10y ago
I agree more studies is always better. It's trickier when something that maybe only benefits a very small % of the population. Did you read my comment explaining my experience and what I know about AIT? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that qualitative data. What I'd be curious about is having someone who's experienced with AIT, a practitioner and has deep domain knowledge, to see how they would counteract the information in articles like the one you posted. I also always have questions for professionals/audiologists and organizations that are skeptical of AIT. I wonder if they have a sound (pun intended) explanation for why some people can have a diagnosable imbalance in their hearing, whereas others don't; I explain what I mean by hearing imbalance if you read my longer comment I linked to above. Edit: Added and changed a few things.
loceng 10y ago
After fully reading the link above, I first noticed that the author is a psychologist and not also an audiologist. Not saying that to discredit him, other than to point out he might not be the best person to reference, who may not fully understand the research he's reading - especially because they don't mention if he actually has training or personal experience doing the sound therapy/training or offering it to others. Likewise, he references the 28+ clinical trials that AIT links to on their website, however he doesn't go into any of the that research himself to analyze it and tell us why. Yes, we'd have to read all of the referenced material to perhaps start to understand the process -- however unless we've also been trained to offer AIT properly then we can't know if their protocols are flawed --- unless there was, as I wish, an official response by AIT people to outline where the was or may have been problems with their process, including perhaps offering AIT to people who shouldn't have been candidates to begin with.

loceng 10y ago

I agree more studies is always better. It's trickier when something that maybe only benefits a very small % of the population. Did you read my comment explaining my experience and what I know about AIT? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that qualitative data. What I'd be curious about is having someone who's experienced with AIT, a practitioner and has deep domain knowledge, to see how they would counteract the information in articles like the one you posted. I also always have questions for professionals/audiologists and organizations that are skeptical of AIT. I wonder if they have a sound (pun intended) explanation for why some people can have a diagnosable imbalance in their hearing, whereas others don't; I explain what I mean by hearing imbalance if you read my longer comment I linked to above. Edit: Added and changed a few things.

loceng 10y ago

After fully reading the link above, I first noticed that the author is a psychologist and not also an audiologist. Not saying that to discredit him, other than to point out he might not be the best person to reference, who may not fully understand the research he's reading - especially because they don't mention if he actually has training or personal experience doing the sound therapy/training or offering it to others. Likewise, he references the 28+ clinical trials that AIT links to on their website, however he doesn't go into any of the that research himself to analyze it and tell us why. Yes, we'd have to read all of the referenced material to perhaps start to understand the process -- however unless we've also been trained to offer AIT properly then we can't know if their protocols are flawed --- unless there was, as I wish, an official response by AIT people to outline where the was or may have been problems with their process, including perhaps offering AIT to people who shouldn't have been candidates to begin with.