Intergrated Listening – endorsed by Hallowell – does this work at all?

[JimC.]

Welcome to iLs

Endorsed by Dr. Hallowell in his blog, but has anyone tried this at all? I’m tiring of spending $ on things that *might* work.

TIA, Jim

REPORT ABUSE

[JimC.]

Anyone????

REPORT ABUSE

[Anonymous]

Looks like they are still just getting started. Most of their customers are the ones who

took the one and four-day training courses and bought the kits to become “licensed”.

I think I’d start with the guys who had eight or more years of training and the authority

to write prescriptions or get your insurance provider to contribute to proven strategies.

REPORT ABUSE

[JimC.]

Thanks. Local “licensed” person near me happens to be an MD, but then again, not sure if that makes it worthwhile. Answer appreciated, Jim

REPORT ABUSE

[Patte Rosebank]

Looks highly questionable at this stage. Save your money.

REPORT ABUSE

[JimC.]

“Highly questionable” is based on what? Not to be confrontational, but I find opinions with no backup “highly questionable”, and not too helpful. I posted here as it’s “Ask an Expert” forum, hoping Dr. J or someone would chime in. You know, with an expert’s advice?I’m not sure if you’re an expert or a helpful person expressing a personal opinion? Jim

REPORT ABUSE

[Patte Rosebank]

I’m not an expert, but I know where to find them.

I can understand your eagerness to try any new therapies that sound promising, but in the case of alternative medical treatments that are being sold for large sums of money and being promoted as a sure-fire cure, it is always wisest to err on the side of caution. In other words, don’t buy it unless they can absolutely prove that it works.

I’ve done some research on Integrated Listening and related therapies. Most of the Google hits on “Integrated Listening” are for companies selling it. However, I did manage to find one site ( http://abctherapeutics.blogspot.com ) that actually takes a good hard look at it, and whether it works or is just quackery. The site has two well-researched articles that expose Integrated Listening (AKA Auditory Integration training/therapy) as outright quackery. These are not just opinions. They are supported by numerous sources, which the author cites and provides links to.

A big red flag is that Integrated Listening is not FDA-approved. In fact, the FDA has BANNED it. http://abctherapeutics.blogspot.com/2006/02/critical-appraisal-of-therapeutic.html This article also cites several others which have found Integrated Listening to be ineffective.

Not only that, but a doctor who was promoting the Tomatis version of Integrated Listening lost her license to practice, for several reasons including: use of the Tomatis Electronic Ear which has been banned by the FDA, use of unlicensed persons to practice occupational therapy, and fraudulent billing practices. http://abctherapeutics.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html

Her letter, in which she voluntarily surrenders her license to practise occupational therapy in Maryland, states that she is surrendering her license in response to a complaint. Here’s the entire letter: http://mdotboard.org/dejean.pdf

The ABC Therapeutics article goes on to state that “a Dr. Ron Minson owns Integrated Listening Systems. His work is based largely on Tomatis, as stated on his website – but rather than using the banned FDA device, his system relies on music recorded on an IPod. They also have a ‘device’ that they sell (called the “iLs 1000″) but I don’t know if this is related to the banned FDA device.”

Furthermore, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association has examined auditory integration systems, and this is their conclusion: “This report has reviewed the method of AIT most commonly used in the U.S. and offered as treatment for a variety of communication, behavioral, emotional, and learning disorders. 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 American Academy of Audiology (1993), ASHA (1994), the American Academy of Pediatrics (1998), and the Educational Audiology Association (1997) all concur that AIT should be considered an experimental procedure. In addition, more recently, the New York State Department of Health (1999) developed clinical practice guidelines for the assessment of and intervention for children with autism and pervasive developmental disorders. After evaluation of the research currently available on AIT, the New York Department of Health concluded that the efficacy of the treatment had not been demonstrated and recommended that AIT not be used as an intervention for young children with autism. Nonetheless, this therapy continues to be offered as a clinical treatment by some audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and others. Thus, as a result of the review of AIT research literature reported herein, it is recommended that ASHA re-examine this report should scientific, controlled studies supporting AIT’s effectiveness and safety become available.” http://www.asha.org/docs/html/TR2004-00260.html

There is also a Cochrane review of the efficacy of auditory integration training and other sound-based therapies, in this case, in the treatment of autism. Their findings: “No trials assessing sound therapies other than AIT were found. Six RCTs of AIT, including one cross-over trial, were identified with a total of 171 individuals aged 3 to 39 years. Four trials had fewer than 20 participants. Allocation concealment was inadequate for all studies. Seventeen different outcome measures were used. Only two outcomes were used by three or more studies. Meta-analysis was not possible due to very high heterogeneity or presentation of data in unusable forms. Three studies (Bettison 1996; Zollweg 1997; Mudford 2000) did not demonstrate benefit of AIT over control conditions. Three trials (Veale 1993; Rimland 1995; Edelson 1999) reported improvements at three months for the AIT group based on improvements of total mean scores for the ABC, which is of questionable validity. Rimland 1995 also reported improvements at three months in the AIT group for ABC subgroup scores. No significant adverse effects of AIT were reported.” In other words, far more research, with full clinical trials, is necessary to prove the efficacy of this therapy. http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003681.html

To sum up: Highly questionable at this stage. Save your money.

REPORT ABUSE

[Patte Rosebank]

Well, you did ask for proof… ;-P

REPORT ABUSE

[Anonymous]

BOOM. Headshot.

Seriously though, Larynxa is about the last person you can call out on this site short of Rick, Dr. J, or Aerin. They do their research, and might I add far more thoroughly than most of us have the patience to manage.

REPORT ABUSE

[JimC.]

Thanks that’s really helpful; as originally stated when Dr. Hallowell endorsed iLs , it appeared to hold some promise. My research was not nearly as productive as yours, and I thank you for your insight.

Jaybird, I don’t know Larynxa as poster, and so a simple statement with no backup invites questioning. When I posted, it quite literally was Dr. Hollowel’s opinion against that of Larynxa’s – clarification was missing on both sides.

Thanks Larynxa, Jim

REPORT ABUSE

[Anonymous]

Larynxa — Excellent reportage!!!! Thank you for saving me the trouble.

I just detest seeing people with ADHD exploited by unproven modalities. If you have enough money to experiment, great (as long as it is a benign therapy). But the trouble is, many people with ADHD do not have money to waste. Nor do they have time to waste.

The longer they go without success and the more they spend without result, the less optimistic they can become about achieving the results they want in their lives.

Also consider the potential for conflict of interest when an expert is selling or endorsing a product in exchange for payment.

REPORT ABUSE

[JimC.]

@ Gina: I tried a local ‘doc’ with no appreciable results at a cost of a few thousand $. So I agree – I tried a local biofeedback practitioner who publishes this list of credentials:

BIOFEEDBACK FOR THE BRAIN

The Neurotherapeutic Treatment of ADD, Autism, Depression, and More

Paul G. Swingle, Ph.D., is a Fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association and was Lecturer in Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School from 1991 to 1998. Professor Swingle was Chairman of the Faculty of Child Psychology at the University of Ottawa from 1972 to 1977, and Clinical Supervisor from 1987 to 1997. He has also taught at McGill University, Dalhousie University and McMaster University. He is a Registered Psychologist in British Columbia and is (BCIA) Certified in Biofeedback and Neurotherapy. Since 1997 he has been in a private practice in Vancouver, British Columbia. His most recent book, “Biofeedback for the Brain” (2008), was published by Rutgers University Press. Swingle and Associates also offers training workshops in Vancouver and at other locations around the world”.

REPORT ABUSE

[Author]

Posts