Susan Moore (smoore at otolaryngology-po.oto.uiowa.edu) wrote:
: >To what extent do the sounds of audio integration training act to
: >free up glue ear or other middle ear trouble? What level of sound
: >will do that, and what dose?
:: >Shouldn't such things as wearing a balaclava at night be tried first,
:: Um, I have limited experience in the field of audiology so far but from
: my understanding, the word is still out on the validity, effectiveness,
: etc. of auditory integration training. There are those who swear by it
: for treatment of autisim, ADHD, etc. from what I have read/heard, but
: still, nothing I have seen has effectively demonstrated to ME that
: this isn't just another snake-oil treatment.
:: SO, having said that, glue ear and other middle ear trouble MUST be
: addressed by a medical doctor, preferrably an ear, nose, and throat
: specialist. Glue ear is a serious condition that can lead to serious hearing
: impairment not to mention meningitis, brain abcess, and death, if not
: treated. NO level/dose of AIT treatment is going to clear up glue ear.
Thanks for your reply. I have now obtained some of the material from the
people considering the training. It seems they may have been confused as
to fixing the glue ear problem/results of having had glue ear in language
formation years problem. I am wondering how it was explained.
:: Furthermore, excuse my ignorance, but what, exactly, is involved in
: wearing of a balaclava??
A balaclava is a hat, usually wool, which covers the entire head but
leaves a small gap for eyes/nose. So the ears/neck muscles keep warm and
relaxed for blood flow.
It makes me think of people putting Greek
: pastries on their ears at night. (yes, I know, the spelling is different,
: but, as you may have noticed, spelling is not my strong point).
:: There was something else in your posting that bothered me profoundly
: regarding aging and noise damage...it demonstrated that you have probably
: been confused/misled or that you have misunderstood whoever it was that you
: have seen regarding hearing loss/communication difficulties. I strongly
: suggest you and your relative see a different professional (who does NOT
: perform AIT training) who specialized in the diagnosis and treatment of
: hearing loss.
When the people spoke of the tester reporting the unusual difference
between the two signals I thought air and bone conduction were being
compared, but no bone conduction was done. And they were told there was
presbycusis, though 6000 Hz appears to be the limit of the test.
There is data at http://www.vashonisland.com/brainresources
One of the graphs produced was a latency graph. It was supposed to have
real time on the x axis and frequency on the y axis. But the y axis is
marked with pressure or dB on every graph.
There also seems to be confusion in the descriptions given as to whether
the `radiated sonic emissions from the cochlea in direct response to
sounds emitted into the external ear', or
` If your concern is that because your child does not speak and
therefore cannot provide Yes / No answers for an audiogram
(measurement of hearing potential), we have provided for this
situation. Our organization is one of the few facilities in the
United States and Australia to own an Otoacoustic Emissions Tester.
This particular machine uses a small ear probe (like an ear plug),
inserted gently into the ear canal that gauges the hearing response
of the inner ear using technology much like sonar. The echoes
gained and recorded during the testing procedure (one to two and a
half minutes per ear), are statistically analyzed and presented as
a full spectrum hearing scale. We can then analyze the presentation
and determine whether the client's hearing is within normal range
and whether they are experiencing hyper-acute hearing. After such a
determination, we can then program the filtration and modulation of
the music presentation to suit that client's individual needs. '
Where echoes seems to have a different meaning. I think that the testing
presumes that the hearing nerves have a response - an active response is
coming from the cochlea. I feel that any watering down for explanation of
this process is very wrongful.
I had read years ago that sound comes from the ear and perhaps this
testing is very valuable. I would like to have it explained and the
graphs labelled properly.