Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Vibroacoustic therapy

There seems to be some misunderstanding concerning definition: Music is defined as "auditive reception of sounds created for emotional communication" VAT is NOT intended for auditive perception. VAT is addressing the body directly without going via bonaural perception. Most critics here forget that VAT is trying to minimize auditive reception and maximise body surface reception. The original idea was this: If we relax when we hear music,- then the effect ought to be even more effective if we could access the muscles and nerves directly. The name vibroacoustic emerged because the most effective elements of music was the bass frequency, Under 30 Hx we were approaching the treshold, in which we do not perceive the vibration as a tone, and over 12o Hz we hear too well, and the vibration sensation was overridden by auditory perception. In the area between, we both hear the stimuli and feel them. Hence Vibro-acoustic. There is some confusion on Internet concerning VAM (Vibroacoustic Music = Music added bass frequencies) and VAS (Vibroacoustic Stimulation = Monotone, sinusoidal, transfer of sound to living tissue). The latest (?) development, to my knowledge, is using slim transducers for transfer of VAS signals directly to the bodt. When we use loudspeakers, there is a considerable pollution of sound in the therapy toom. When we use transducers, we do not have the energy loss we get from loudspeaker. VAT is intended to communicate directly with muscles and the nervous system. Sound leakage to the room is reduced as much as possible. So much for hardware. All research on VAT has, hitherto, been small sample reports from different sources,- from therapists with very varying professional backgrounds. No research has been done in a standardized way. and we see different "unique" equipment and sound CDs claiming to work miracles. I wish that we could join forces and agree upon some procedures that can be compared with each other. Such multicentered approach might, eventually, lead us towards a sample base that could be accepted by scientific methods. Until then, let us search for something to agree about. Maunula. 11.12.13 Olav Skille 82.181.220.105 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Skille - I do not think we are confused about the nature of vibroacoustic therapy. The subject of this discussion is whether the sources available to Wikipedia are of a sufficiently high quality that will allow us to verify that this topic is notable according to our guidelines. You can review the policy here: WP:MEDRS. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr Fadhley - References I posted on my user talk page is not good enough quality? written by reputable expert bodies? I think it is compliant with your WP:MEDRS or fit into some other category. If VAS is compliant VAT should be. Cyrinus (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly been told what the problems are with those sources. Ignoring those explanations amounts to wp:IDHT. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Cyrinus - the links you have provided appear to be of very low quality indeed. We have not yet seen one which appears to be WP:MEDRS - which is the only criteria that counts when assessing the notability of a biomedical topic. I live in hope that you will fully familiarise yourself with the content guidelines before you present yet more unusable sources! --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)