Talk:Sensory integration dysfunction

Sensory integration vs sensory processing
After my edits of the SI dysfunction page were undone twice today I learned that the Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD) page has recently merged the SI dysfunction page after a vote on the SPD page to do so. The argument for the quasi deletion of the SI dysfunction page was that "SI dysfunction" is "the old name" which is definitely not true. It is the original name and still in use all over the world. SPD is an alternative name that was promoted by Lucy Miller. That's it.

To enable readers and editors to keep track of the previous actions, I am copying my contribution to the Talk section of the SPD page.

"Hi guys, I am coming to this page because I learned today that the SPD page has eaten the sensory integration dysfunction page not too long ago. I am quite alarmed by this action, by the content of the SPD page that claims to inform about sensory integrative dysfunction, as well as the tone of the talk here! "THEIR group" and "OUR goals"... is there a competition going on?!

When I looked things up in Wikipedia I always believed that this was relatively objective information. Unfortunately, the SPD page gives me the impression that information is manipulated intentionally. Let me give you one example that caught my eye just by scanning through: You modified a quote by Dr Ayres that every SI-trained therapist should know to fit your personal preferences. The original reads "Sensory integration is the organization of information blah blah blah". On the SPD page it suddenly reads "Sensory processing is the organization..." even with a reference given, as if Ayres had used the term sensory processing. Another manipulation is the way how Dr Ayres' model is presented as historical and outdated. As you certainly know, Ayres' typology of SI disorder has recently been validated (Mailloux et al., 2011). Among therapists and teachers around the world "SI disorder" is the term that people know and use.

Just to make it clear: I am not considering myself member of any group. I stand for justice, balance, objectivity. I am not dogmatic in the use of either term, sensory processing or sensory integration. I appreciate Lucy's immense research efforts but I do have some serious factual problems with her proposed "nosology" which to me is simply a proposal that was not even well received, and not the universally accepted state of the art as it is presented here.

Why am I writing all of this? I wanted to provide some balanced objective information on sensory integration disorder but each of my attempts was undone within the hour by a user who is obviously affiliated with the SPD page. This feels like harassment! Believe me, it is frustrating! That's why I came to visit the SPD page, and while I love the lots of references, I am generally not happy at what I see here.

I have some suggestions for good cooperation instead of vandalism: 1. Please undo the strange vote on quasi deleting the sensory integration dysfunction page. 2. Please make sure you never make edits without giving a summary and a comment in the talk section (this is also considered good practice on Wikipedia). It is so frustrating when your whole work is gone - as you must know! 3. Please try to get the manipulative aspects out of your page. I'll be happy to help. I guess an outsider has a more objective eye. Regards"

Surprisingly, the SI dysfunction page is visible again! Maybe my first suggestion has already been implemented. I want to thank whoever I owe it! ElDelRey1 (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
I reverted the redirection to the "sensory processing disorder" page. This redirection was very confusing. The term "sensory integration dysfunction" is absolutely in use. Although the authors may wish so, it is not true that SPD has replaced the term "sensory integrative dysfunction". So let's keep it clear and objective and state that this term is based on Ayres original work and SPD is based on someone else's work. I hope everyone supports this solution! ElDelRey1 (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to offer a balanced view on this topic about different terminologies and typologies. As editors have previously stated, this is a messy topic that requires clarification. However, something weird is happening: another user is simply undoing my changes without commenting or giving any argument in the talk. This happened twice already. The other user is redirecting this page to a different page that he or she is obviously affiliated with. The page that the reader is directed to provides only one view of the topic. I am hoping that this will go a civilized way instead of vandalizing a serious attempt to clean this topic up. Thanks for your consideration!!! ElDelRey1 (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Links to Holonomic brain theory
It's bad form to revert someone without commenting on the talk page. It leaves no room for discussion, and leads to bad blood. That's why I'm placing this comment, to give an opportunity to for consensus to emerge. Please discuss this link prior to adding it back. brenneman (t) (c) 11:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this really a valid description?
Most of this article talks about lower or higher sensitivity. There is no rule that would let the neurotypical sensitivity be the norm and non-disordered while every other sensitivity would be disordered.

There is absolutely no support for the idea that differences in sensitivity would be a result of errors in integrating senses. I think this whole article is original research not backed up by any relevant research and thus should be nominated for deletion.

Response to above comment - Isn't it better to re-write showing more facts rather than delete, as such a page is needed on wikipedia. Can't a bold re-write be done? AmyNelson 22:20 12 Sep, 2005 (BST)


 * I think a "controversy" section or something similar shold be added.--Rdos 06:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment
Please KEEP. People must have access to this info. My son has SID- no matter what it is called. Read & refer to Carol Kranowitz' books. She has shed much light on SID. (preceding unsigned comment was from, moved from article to Talk page by MCB 23:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC))

Edits
I made some relatively large edits, but mostly cleaning up and clarifying. I did axe one paragraph that I haven't found any support for. If something needs explaining, let me know, but I don't think I've done anything controversial. 69.205.160.33 01:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientific?
Is this a medically recognized disorder or something that came up because of the common sensory difficulties of autistics? Neurodivergent 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No. "SID" can only be diagnosed by a person holding an Occupational Therapy "qualification", but not by an MD (including, for example, a neurologist) or PhD in Psychology, since it is not recognized as a disorder by either medicine or psychology. Occupational Therapists in many cases earn healthy livings from providing "therapy" for children with "SID", such as brushing them and inducing them to wear weighted vests. Need we say more? For the curious, googling "SID" + "quackery" or "junk science" might prove illuminating. Incidentally, of those 130 peer-reviewed articles "mostly [hah!] in Occupational Therapy journals", how many were in good neurology journals, as one would expect for a purported diagnosis first defined 20+ years ago of a developmental neurological deficiency? The existence of this completely uncritical, largely unreferenced whole-hearted endorsement of one of the biggest crocks in child development "theory" by Wikipedia certainly goes far to help Wikipedia's reputation as the favorite reference material of credulous morons!

Just an addition, Occupational therapists do not diagnose. It is not permitted within our scope of practice. Occuaptional therapists are licenses health care providers so there shouldn't be someone, somewhere with just an OT "qualification". Occuaptional therapists provide treatment for children and adults who have difficulty functioning in their daily lives. I do treat children with a SID diagnosis from a developmental peditrician. There is a large push to get SID included in the DSM, but change is slow to happen. Clearly, many of these children are "different" from neuro-typical children and deserve assistance to meet their potential. It shouldn't be considered suspect that the practictitioners who work in this field are producing the most research. It is a shame that more is not being published in other journals help educate other professions. A new study from Temple University researchers, presented this month at the American Occupational Therapy Association’s 2008 conference, found that children with autistic spectrum disorders who underwent sensory integration therapy exhibited fewer autistic mannerisms compared to children who received standard treatments. Such mannerisms, including repetitive hand movements or actions, making noises, jumping or having highly restricted interests, often interfere with paying attention and learning. KarmaAnais —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.58.100 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have SID, and was seeing a neural-specialist (psychologist) for something unrelated. I was assured that he understood the condition, and there was no disagreement with that diagnosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.98.243 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Verified
I added a reference to a text book that has an entire chapter (55 pages) on sensory integration and dysfunction. Is it now considered verified to be able to remove the not verified thingy? --aishel 05:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Bump? --aishel 00:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

sensory integration dysfunction
My son was just diagnosed with this. In a classroom of 20 noisy kids, he goes into his own little world and prefers to play alone. He deals with the excessive noise by tuning out. I don't blame him. He doesn't want the other kids bumping into him and if they unexpectedly touch him - which must happen every couple of minutes - he perceives that the other kids are hurting him and it makes him sad.

With fewer kids, or at the playground, he makes friends easy and plays pretty well the majority of the time. He also does a lot of creative play, which Asperger kids do not.

I read that the Neuro Doc thinks that these kids and their family members have anxiety problems. I am a very outgoing person, but I have never liked groups, either. I get a little overwhelmed by the noise in a classroom, too. I don't want 20 kids bumping into me constantly, either. I've never been given an anxiety diagnosis nor has anyone in our family. I think kids who get this diagnosis are probably just extremely sensitive to stimuli.

My son has been sensitive since he came out of the womb. He's always given startled responses to certain noises and as an infant, he prefered to lay down flat on his back when he was really tired. Being rocked or constantly held was too much tactile stimuli for him.

A final thought on the "overdiagnosis of SID" is that kids are being expected to do more and more at earlier ages in this country. When they can't conform, they are taken to Pediatric Neurologists who prefer to give an ADH/DD diagnosis so they can put them on Ritalin or a similar prescription. If we were living in Germany, my son would attend Kindergarten at age 5 for 3 hours a day. He would be expected to play, not to work on the alphabet, do lengthy circle times, read "site" words or sit quietly with books for a half hour. If we lived in Japan, he would start school the spring after his 6th birthday.

He's just turned 5 and the PreK teacher "knows" that he can write his name. As his mom, I know he can't and is just not ready yet.

Research shows that children who learn to read and write at an early age post no gains over kids who learn at later ages. By the 3rd Grade, they all level out. Early dropout intervention programs are created to focus on third-graders now since it has been determined that the kids who drop out of school begin planning to drop out as early as in the 3rd Grade. So pushing kids to do more at earlier ages may actually be contributing to the drop-out rates.

In about 7 months, my son will need to conform to this country's requirements of Kindergarten, where they, in my opinion, create ADHD kids by changing the activities every 15 minutes throughout the day. I am a substitute teacher in the public schools and in our county, the children aren't even allowed to have recess. Try to imagine 6 1/2-hour days with 20+ kids who are not allowed to release their energy in a constructive way. Recess is age-appropriate and if anything, provides more oxygen to the brain for learning.

My son has an attention span better than most adults and can play happily in one spot for a few hours. The constant transitioning in PreK really is a challenge for him.

Hopefully OT will desensitize him to his sensitivities enough that he will be ready for Kindergarten this fall. That's why the diagnosis was important for us. I don't care if it's a scientifically-proven fact that he's not processing anything correctly, I just want to find a way for him to be able to handle the large class sizes that cause him to shut down and withdraw.

Sensitivity is not an enviable trait to have in this country. With estimates of SID at 15+ percent of the population, it doesn't look like the sensitive types are going anywhere anytime soon. Maybe more research will be forthcoming to help sensitive children and adults adapt better. But whether it's called SID or something else, it does exist.


 * I'd like to comment on that. I was diagnosed around 8 to 10 years of age, and have been living with this condition pretty much all my life.  I had been seeing two occupational therapists over the span of around 6 years.  Your son having such a diagnosis at an early age does seem rather premature, since children at that age have not developed the coping skills that older kids have-- of course they are sensitive at that age, and I would be concerned if they were not.  If you do not believe this is the case with your son, I highly recommend another opinion, because he will develop other problems if he grows with some label on his head.
 * I do not know all your son's symptoms, but I can tell you that sentitivity is not the only one. What happens to us is that we sort of have a limited capacity for filtering stimulation, so it is not just a matter of feeling too much.  When there are too many lights, sounds and other stimulli, I go sensory "deaf" and become confused easily, while other times I feel like I am having an anxiety attack from over stimulation-- this is not just with social situations, because I like to be alone and will still feel the same way.  If I were you, observe your son while he his by himself: turn on the TV and a radio, put a lot of lights on, then watch him play.  Talk to him after a few minutes, and see if there is a difference when there is not as much distraction. solstice

I think most school systems are pretty bad, just having a forced system is bad. It should be more free, the kids should get to do what interested them in the moment, in the now. Be that outdoor/sport activities, music/arts/theatre or watching movies/reading books, whatever. You learn the best when your interested or having fun, and you cant force someone to be interested or have fun. Our greatest minds were not created by schools, they were created by the persons wielding them, by their genuine interests. Move somewhere your kids arent forced, todays schools are like nazi concentration camps all over again. /w


 * What a great way to prepare kids for a career in watching cartoons and sticking things up your nose (which is what kids are interested in most of the time) 71.63.119.49 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have doubts...
I truly have doubts about the validity of 'SID' as a diagnosis, or even as a recognized syndrome. I'm not going to upset anyone by telling exactly what I think of "SID." However, it is undeniable that there have been numerous books written on SIDs. Articles and discussions on SID. Scientists and doctors postulate and theorize about it... and yes, children are being diagnosed with it. It's out there and widely publicized.

Therefore, when someone wants to know about a topic and they go to Wikipedia, they should find a page describing it in some detail. That's what I did. How can this page be recommended for deletion? There are countless entries for ridiculous concepts whose very existence is dubious. For the reasons in the previous paragraph, this article is vital.71.101.196.29 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't up for deletion anymore. It was put up to vote about a year ago, but as you can see, the article has made great improvements since then, and is of course, here to stay. --aishel 23:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is an accepted diagnosis and many insurance companies pay benefits for the SIPT evaluation and for sensory-integration treatment by a licensed OT. JohnsonRon 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just seen that Cigna does not pay any benefits for this evaluation therapy because it considered "unproven." Please supply the names of insurance companies who do pay for this.Uniprof (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Also see my edit(e) of my own contribution below. The best of my research so far has not come up with any major insurance company that considers SI or evaluations of SI as supported enough to pay for. Note that JohnsonRon has been flagged as a sock puppet. I think this page is important to potentially inform readers of the controversy around these issues. There are many websites that present this as a controversy-free term and offer SI treatment.76.90.63.119 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Sorry I forgot to sign in. The last comments were mine.Uniprof (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Links
I just took out the entire external links section - none of them really met my interpretation of WP:EL and WP:RS, and there were far too many of them. I found none that unequivocally deserved to be there so it was either take them all out or leave them all in. I'd prefer a discussion of individual links before putting any back on the page. WLU 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

my grandson
My grandson who will be 2 in August 07 was recently diagnosed with SID by an occupational therapist. After reading on this in Wikipedia I'm wondering how long it takes to see (if any) of the following; autism spectrum disorders, dyslexia, Developmental Dyspraxia, pervasive developmental disorder, Tourette's Syndrome, multiple sclerosis may appear? He has already shown the speach delay issue. 65.255.66.138 16:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Try asking this on the science reference desk, although you may find that people only give you links to follow, as asking for medical advice is frowned upon there (your doctor/pediatrician is a better call for that). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of article's near-exclusive emphasis on children
The children with sensory integration dysfunction grow up and many or even most of them retain their condition (I know a ton of adult autistics, for example, and many of them report still having some form of sensory integration issues), yet the article doesn't really acknowledge the presence of the condition in adults (and the problems it still causes) and strongly implies, IMHO, that it's purely a kid thing. Songflower 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Add me to this criticism, I think I saw the word "Adult" twice. You may want to categorize or title this article as being pediatric and intended for parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.70.145 (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better balance of presentation for this article, citing the large body of research on the opposing view
(1) Although it is possible that some pediatricians may recommend various therapies based upon sensory integration, The American Association of Pediatrics has made the following two statements in recent position papers:

a. "Some programs such as patterning have little effect on functional skills and are inappropriate for children with motor disabilities. Scientific legitimacy has also not been established for sensory integration intervention for children with motor disabilities." (from Linda J. Michaud, MD and Committee on Children With Disabilities, "Prescribing Therapy Services for Children with Motor Disabilities." Pediatrics, Vol. 113 No. 6 June 2004, pp. 1836-1838 (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;113/6/1836).	b. "Although many believe occupational therapy is subjectively effective in educational and clinical settings, research data to support its effectiveness is scant. Occupational and physical therapy may be helpful in addressing coordination and motor planning deficits occurring in some children with ASD." (ASD is the current designation of children with autism like disorders. From Committee on Children With Disabilities, "Technical Report: The Pediatrician's Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Children." Pediatrics, Vol. 107 No. 5 May 2001, p. e85, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/107/5/e85).

(2) The concept of sensory integration deficits has been challenged from the standpoint of its derivation (Cummins, Robert A. "Sensory integration and learning disabilities: Ayres' factor analyses reappraised." Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol 24(3), Mar 1991, pp. 160-168.) From the abstract, "Reviewed 8 papers published by A. J. Ayres between 1965 and 1987 that contain 10 multivariate analyses that bear upon her conception of sensory integration. These analyses purport to have identified factors that emerge from the scores of children with learning disabilities but not from the scores of academically nondisabled children. A reappraisal of these analyses in combination finds no support for this claim. As a consequence, these data provide no validity for either the diagnostic procedures or the remedial programs for children with learning disabilities that have been derived from this work." (3) The therapeutic effectiveness of SI therapy has been challenged in numerous studies and critical methodological examinations of such studies. Here is a partial list: a. Hoehn, T. P., Baumeister, A. A. "A critique of the application of sensory integration therapy to children with learning disabilities." Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol 27(6), Jun-Jul 1994, pp. 338-350. b. Morrison, D. C., Sublett, J. "The effects of sensory integration therapy on nystagmus duration, equilibrium reactions and visual-motor integration in reading retarded children. " Child Care, Health & Development. Vol 12(2), Mar-Apr 1986, pp. 99-110 c. Davidson, T., Williams, B. "Occupational therapy for children with developmental coordination disorder: A study of the effectiveness of a combined sensory integration and perceptual-motor intervention." British Journal of Occupational Therapy. Vol 63(10), Oct 2000, pp. 495-499 d. Griffer, M. R. "Is sensory integration effective for children with language-learning disorders?: A critical review of the evidence." Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. Vol 30(4), Oct 1999, pp. 393-400 e. Aetna insurance has another review of negative findings (http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/200_299/0256.html) (4) Many studies purporting to find positive results of SI therapy have pretested one group of children and then post-tested them after SI therapy, without a control group receiving no treatment for an equivalent amount of time. Several Occupational Therapy journals will accept this kind of research. Positive results were interpreted as support for SI, although (a) Children are receiving other services at the same time, for instance special education services, that are known to improve their functioning. (b) SI typically takes a long enough time that children mature sufficiently to improve their scores on many tests.

(5) Individual case studies or reports of children getting better after SI therapy, while gratifying to hear, nevertheless don’t bear on the likelihood of any future patients benefiting. It is also subject to “publication bias” (positive findings get published but negative findings do not). So for instance the one stunning result of SI may get reported but 30 authors with negative results will not. Uniprof (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

should we accept the unsubstantiated addition of 76.105.91.128? (Nov 2006)
1. I have looked up the research of Lucy J. Miller on the PsychInfo journal article database. It produced 16 of her publications going back to 1986. I did not see one publication that corroborates this one-time contributor's assertion that her research supports any part of the edit. 2. Except for Greenspan (a book, but not a research citation) none of the other alleged sources of this edit have specific enough citations to track them down.

I suggest that this unsupported edit be deleted as the information is unverifiable. Uniprof (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not EBP
As SI treatments lack an established evidentiary foundation, I wonder whether this type of intervention would be more accurately classed as a CAM treatment.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Somatosensory amplification
How, if at all, does SID relate to Somatosensory amplification? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Severe doubts about the validity of the Newman article.
There is a link in the page to an article from the 'Skeptical Inquirer', written by Bobby Newman, entitled 'On Inventing Your Own Disorder'. I find this article entirely biased, narrow-minded, and quite frankly revoltingly stupid. I learnt nothing from it except that some people are insular imbeciles, and I find it extremly offensive as I myself have this disorder. Please read the article in question for yourself and say whether you think it should be removed. Is it actually a worthy addition to this entry? What will people reading this Wikipedia page actually learn from reading it? The language is sarcastic and vulgar, extremely tasteless, and unnecessary. I understand that it demonstrates some people's skepticism regarding this condition, but how would you like it if you had autism, for example, and you came on Wikipedia only to discover that there was a link in the page about autism to an article in which someone basically says 'this is all made up'? Polymath618 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is "offensive" material on wikipedia for everyone. Wikipedia is neither censored, nor is it for the faint of heart. We have holocaust denial, racism, murder, rape, nudity, and worse, often with horrifying photos.
 * I am sorry if the article offends or upsets you or if there are opinions that you find "revoltingly stupid" represented here. That said, wikipedia attempts to fairly represent all relevant points of view about controversial subjects.
 * I am the editor who reverted your removal of the article the first time, mainly because I felt your edit summary made it clear your edit was a result of your POV, not an objective assessment of the article. I am also behind the additions to the article on Anna Jean Ayres that cover similar ground. I left those edits to another, less-involved editor to keep the opinions of several of my collegues out of the editing.
 * (While it has nothing to do with the appropriateness of including the link, I would point out that doubting a diagnosis an the appropriate course of action is not the same as doubting the underlying issues. Saying "consumption" is a poor diagnosis and debating the treatment is not the same as doubting the existance of TB. Similarly, the article in question merely debates the specific diagnosis and the treatment that gave birth to that diagnosis.)
 * I personally feel that the three links ("Separating Fact from Fiction in the Etiology and Treatment of Autism", "Why 'Sensory Integration Disorder' Is a Dubious Diagnosis" and the one you've taken issue with) provide a reasonable summary of the dissention regarding the diagnosis: essentially that SID is not a specific diagnosis but rather imperfectly describes some symptoms common to a range of neurodevelopmental and behavioral disorders, including ADD/ADHD, autism/Asperger's, some anxiety disorders, etc.
 * In addition to including these links, I believe some information on other views is needed in the article. As it now stands, the article presents one side of the issue with a poorly documented "Alternative views" section taped on at the end. The views described as "alternative", however, are not all alternative. To most neuros, peds and psychs, for example, the diagnosis of SID is the "alternative" view. Greenspan’s Diagnostic Manual is not on par with the DSM and the bit about SID not being included in the DSM "yet" is patently crystal ball-ism. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No diagnostic criteria?
The article unfortunately gives virtually no guidance on how clinicians actually make this diagnosis. One of the problems with any discussion of this condition is that nobody seems to agree on how to diagnosis it, or how to measure its severity or response to treatment.PedEye1 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Nobody seems to agree on how to treat it either...or if it's even real in the first place... Charles35 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My theory is that this "disorder" is actually numerous disorders. Read some old novels, plays, operas and such and people die left and right from "consumption". Now, no one dies of consumption. Heck, no one contracts it. "Consumption" was a chronic cough and weight loss, often leading to death. Lots of those deaths were what we now call "tuberculosis". Some weren't and some cases of TB were diagnosed as something else. SID, in my opinion, is a mix of cases. Some ASDs, some ADD/ADHD, etc. and a number of other cases with no official name. Diagnosis? By elimination: it's the last thing left that answers most of the symptoms. Treatment? Good luck, it's going to be coping strategies. My opinion, of course, is moot here. Find reliable sources, report what they say and we're done here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Another page
There is Sensory Integration Dysfunction - the talk page of which redirects here. Does that article need to be merged here? Thanks NiGoosefort (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)