The Magical Mystery Cure Revisited
Transcription
The Magical Mystery Cure Revisited
“Revisiting The Magical Mystery Cure:” Does Therapeutic Listening ® make a difference as an addition to therapy for children with sensory integration issues? Melinda L. Richards, Ph.D., Lynne Burgess, M.A., Kathy Boling, OTR/L, and Velvet Buehler, M.A. Presented to the 22nd Annual Convention of The Tennessee Association of Audiologists & Speech-Language Pathologists 3 October 2014 What is “The Magical Mystery Cure? • Auditory Integration Therapy (AIT) • Background • What it does • What it does not do • Recent incarnations of AIT • Integrated Listening Systems (iLs) • Vital Links’ Therapeutic Listening ® (TL®) • Other programs Citing the ASHA Code of Ethics requirement that holders of the CCC “provide high quality service by voluntarily meeting rigorous academic and professional standards, going beyond the minimum requirements for state licensure, and actively engaging in ongoing professional development . . .” “Therefore . . . . . . a CCC holder who uses AIT is at potential risk for being brought before the (Ethics) Board and, therefore, could be sanctioned, and, in extreme cases, could possibly lose their CCCs.” • The concern for patient safety was heightened by the Practice Policy issued by ASHA in 1994, and adopted by the Legislative Council in 2003. ASHA typically does not take positions on treatment methods/techniques/ programs; however, in the instance of AIT an exception was made and ASHA came out with a policy paper on AIT stating that: "after reviewing empirical research in the area to date, concludes that AIT has not met scientific standards for efficacy that would justify its practice by audiologists and speech-language pathologists. However, well-designed, institutionally approved, research protocols designed to assess the efficacy of AIT are encouraged. It is recommended that this position be reexamined should scientific, controlled studies supporting AIT’s effectiveness and safety become available. The AIT policy paper continues to be reviewed by ASHA. As late as August 2013, ASHA's position remained unchanged. The links to the documents may be found on the www.asha.org. The Position Statement outlining the possibility of these sanctions may be found at: http://www.asha.org/docs/html/PS2004-00218.html (Deussing, Personal Communication, 2013). Our present study . . . • A Pilot Study, designed to determine the efficacy of TL® as an add-on therapy to traditional Occupational Therapy (OT) • The Subjects: • Three groups, six children each group • Qualifications for inclusion in the study • Group assignment was double-blind: • Group 1 received OT only • Group 2 received unmodified music, together with OT • Group 3 received modified music, together with OT Our present study . . . • Test selection for pre- and post-therapy results: The Battery • • • • Sensory Processing Measure Degangi-Berk Test of Sensory Integration Fisher Test Audiological Battery: • • • • • • • • Acoustic Reflexes, contralateral Tympanometry Pure-tone Thresholds Otoacoustic Emissions (OAEs) First half, SSW test; first half of Competing Environmental Sounds CID-W22 Speech-in-Noise test Pitch-Pattern Perception Test Visual inspection of peripheral hearing mechanism using an otoscope. Our present study . . . The Method • Pre- and Post-test battery administered by TL®-certified OTR/L: • Parents completed the Functional Listening Questionnaire (required by Vital Links®) • Sensory Processing Measure (Preschool Home Form) • To profile the child’s sensory processing skills: • • • • • • • • Social Vision Hearing Touch Body Awareness Balance Planning/Ideas Total Test Score • DeGangi-Berk Test of Sensory Integration • To assess the three components of vestibular processing; • postural control • bilateral motor coordination • reflex integration The Occupational Therapy Assessments • Sensory Processing Measure- Preschool Home Form • Designed to assess children ages 2-5 • Covers a wide range of behaviors and characteristics related to sensory processing, social participation, and praxis • Rated in terms of frequency of the behavior on a 4 point scale • Areas tested include: social participation, vision, hearing, touch, body awareness, balance, planning and ideas, and total sensory systems • Yields standard scores into one of three interpretive ranges: typical, some problems, or definite dysfunction I. The Occupational Therapy Assessments • B. DeGangi-Berk Test of Sensory Integration • A 36 item test for preschool children ages 3-5 • Assesses three vestibular based functions to include: postural control, bilateral motor integration, and reflex integration • The primary purposes of the vestibular system are: • 1- detect motion • 2- detect and respond to gravity • 3- detect motion within the visual field • 4- detect muscle tone and motor coordination • 5- develop and maintain body scheme • This assessment was chosen for the study because of the close connection between the vestibular and auditory systems. These two systems develop as a unit and appear to be connected from both structural and functional points of view. They share the bony labyrinth and membranes of the inner ear and their receptors respond to vibration with common fluids. The auditory and vestibular systems have their own branch of the eighth cranial nerve; however, upon stimulation, there is crossover from one to the other. Test items for postural control 1. Monkey Task- ability to assume and maintain anti-gravity posture of flexion Test items for postural control • 2. Side-sit cocontraction- cocontraction of upper extremities and trunk Test items for postural control • 3. Prone on elbows- Neck cocontraction in the prone position Test items for postural control • 4. Wheelbarrow walk- Stability of the neck, trunk, and upper extremity extensors Test items for postural control • 5. Airplane- Ability to assume and maintain an antigravity posture of extension Test items for postural control • 6. Scooter board cocontraction- cocontraction of the upper extremteies Test items for bilateral motor integration 1.Rolling pin activity- bilateral motor coordination, trunk rotation, crossing the midline 2.Jump and turn- BMC of the lower extremities, trunk rotation 3.Diadokenesis- complete forearm rotation 4.Drumming- BMC 1.Upper extremity control- motor speed, disassociation of the trunk and arm, crossing the midline Test items for reflex integration • 1. Asymmetrical Tonic Neck Reflex (ATNR) • 2. Symmetrical Tonic Neck Reflex (STNR) • 3. Diadokokenesis II. Additional tools/documentation used in the study A. Functional listening questionnaire (Vital Links) 15 pg child history form B. Clinical observations of listening (Vital Links) 3 pg checklist of orienting and attending patterns, respiratory patterns, and movement patterns II. Additional tools/documentation used in the study • C. Home program “Ease” disc/modulated music (Vital Links) II. Additional tools/documentation used in the study • D. Parent log (PCSG) II. Additional tools/documentation used in the study • E. Therapist log (PCSG) Our Present Study . . . Method The Therapy Protocol • Group A: Received 10 weeks of prescribed and appropriately profiled OT with no listening component. • Group B: Received 10 weeks of prescribed and appropriately profiled OT and listened unmodified music, stylistically matched to TL® through Sennheiser HD-500A headphones during therapy. • Group C: Received 10 weeks of prescribed and appropriately profiled OT and listened Modified TL® music through Sennheiser HD-500A headphones during therapy. III. The therapy sessions A.Selecting a profile and choosing CDs Within TL® there is a wide variety of musical styles and 4 different programming series, each with its own type of electronic modification. These include: The Modulated Series * The Fine Tuning Series The Spatial Enhancement Series The Gearshifters * used in this present study III. The therapy sessions A.Selecting a profile and choosing CDs Our study only used the Modulated Series. A filter was used that alternates between high pass and low pass, with the pivot point set at 1000 Hz, which has been shown to be the best range for eliciting an orienting response. Play sample of Modulated Music III. The therapy sessions A. Selecting a profile and choosing CDs There are 3 categories in the modulated series. Engagement (sensory modulation and space)- The ability to modulate sensation and understand space Interaction (core, praxis, and ability to motorically respond with the environment) Discrimination (higher levels of attention and perceptions) III. The therapy sessions A. Selecting a profile and choosing CDs Start with engagement then move to interaction then discrimination Move from top to bottom of CD list (musical complexity listed from less to more) How long you stay in each area depends on severity There are 3 profiles (severe, moderate, mild) Our study had 3 severe (2 modified, 1 unmodified), 7 moderate (4 modified, 3 unmodified), and 1 mild (unmodified) III. The therapy sessions • B. Power tools of sensory integration • 1. DPPT • 2. Astronaut Training • 3. Sensory Diet • 4. Therapeutic Listening (group A and B) • III. The therapy sessions • C. Video clip of treatment session III. The therapy sessions • D. Parent Testimonial Audiologic Test Battery Katz Central Test Battery Jack Katz, 1997,2001 Our present study . . . The Method: Audiological Measures • Pre- and Post-test battery administered by ASHA-certified Audiologist: • • • • • • • • Hearing screening Tympanometry Acoustic Reflexes Staggered Spondaic Word Test Competing Environmental Sounds Test CID-W22 Speech-In-Noise Test Phonemic Synthesis Picture Test Fisher’s Auditory Problems Checklist (scored by audiologist) Audiologic Assessment • Otoscopy • Tympanometry • Acoustic Reflexes • Hearing Screening Fisher’s Auditory Problems Checklist Normed to age five • • • • • • • • • • Association Attention Attention span Auditory visual integration Closure Comprehension Discrimination Figure-ground Identification Localization 25 statements to mark as a concern • • • • • • • • Long term memory Motivation Performance Recognition Sensitivity Sequential memory Short term memory Speech language problems Fishers Auditory Problems Checklist Staggered Spondaic Word Test (SSW) • Normed down to age 5 years • Assesses dichotic listening • Requires the auditory process of binaural integration when linguistic cues are present • Binaural Integration: the ability to understand and process two different messages presented simultaneously Example: up RNC stairs down town RC LC LNC Staggered Spondaic Word Test (SSW) CID-W22 Speech In Noise Test • Normed down to age five • Assesses the auditory process of auditory figure ground • Auditory figure ground: the ability to understand messages in the presence of background noise (+5db S/N ratio) Example: Repeat these words (25 RE, then 25 LE) Listen to the man and ignore the noise Compare difference in ears Compare difference in quiet and in noise CID Auditory Test W-22 in Noise Phonemic Synthesis Picture Test • Preschool to First Grade (4-7 years of age) • Listen, sequence and remember sounds discreetly presented and blend to make word • Example: m- i- l- k = milk 25 words increasing in number of sounds Percent correct and analysis of types of errors Phonemic Synthesis Picture Test Competing Environmental Sounds • Normed down to age 6 years • Dichotic task assessing Binaural Integration • Example: hear two environmental sounds presented simultaneously to each ear and point to pictures representing the two sounds • Car horn (RE) and sneezing (LE) get total percent correct, and percent correct in each ear Competing Environmental Sounds Test Competing Environmental Sounds Test Results of Pre and Post Testing Fisher’s Auditory Problems Checklist Control Group A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 Fisher's Test Ave. Percent Pre Post Gain/Loss 76 76 0 -9 84 89 64 80 20 -9 96 91 48 44 -8 OT w/Modified TL® C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 OT w/Music B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Fisher's Test Ave. Percent Pre Post Gain/Loss 100 100 0 40 52 30 48 44 -8 64 80 25 80 68 -15 60 60 0 Fisher's Pre Test Ave. Post 80 52 64 84 64 Percent Gain/Loss 84 5 72 38 80 25 88 5 68 6 Our present study . . . The Results • Findings must be considered preliminary • Pilot Study with small N indicates the need for further study • Between Groups GainScore statistic showed no statistical significance • (p > .303; F = 1.310 with 2 df) • Alternatively, we will consider the percent-change for each individual and group. (see next slide) Results: Percent change for Pre- and Post Administrations of Sensory Processing Measure – OT only (Control Group) Sensory Processing Measure Pre-test SOC A1 ( t-score) A2 ( t-score) A3 ( t-score) A4 ( t-score) A5 (t-score) Post-test VIS HEA TOU BOD BAL PLA TOT Percent SOC Percent Gain/Loss VIS Percent Gain/Loss HEA Percent Gain/Loss Percent Gain/Los s TOU Percent Gain/Los s BOD Percent Gain/Los s BAL Percent Gain/Los s PLA Gain/Los s TOT 20 16 11 22 19 11 14 85 17 -15 20 25 10 -9 27 23 15 -21 13 18 15 7 91 7 68 56 52 62 69 42 61 60 63 -7 64 14 47 -10 67 8 62 -10 55 31 64 5 64 7 14 21 21 19 15 17 14 99 16 14 21 0 20 -5 29 53 21 40 24 41 19 36 121 22 54 66 71 55 62 67 61 67 59 9 66 0 70 -1 69 25 72 16 76 13 71 16 72 7 28 14 16 10 16 10 15 72 14 -50 21 50 21 31 31 210 16 0 18 80 14 -7 115 60 69 58 65 42 63 44 58 57 54 -22 66 14 71 9 71 69 65 3 67 52 61 5 70 23 16 30 19 36 24 20 16 135 13 -19 19 -37 15 -21 29 -19 17 -29 18 -10 11 -31 102 -24 59 75 69 80 77 70 65 72 52 -12 62 -17 63 -9 69 -14 66 -14 67 -4 52 -20 67 -7 19 16 23 37 15 20 10 119 20 5 20 25 24 4 35 -5 18 20 24 20 20 100 129 8 67 56 72 80 62 70 48 72 68 1 64 14 73 1 77 -4 68 10 75 7 72 50 72 0 Results: Percent change for Pre- and Post Administrations of Sensory Processing Measure – OT w/Music Sensory Processing Measure Pre-test SOC B1 ( t-score) B2 ( t-score) B3 (t-score) B4 (t-score) B5 Post-test VIS HEA TOU BOD BAL PLA TOT SOC VIS HEA TOU BOD BAL PLA TOT 22 27 22 28 23 28 16 136 19 -14 18 -33 16 -43 27 -4 19 -86 21 11 20 11 109 581 70 72 72 68 76 76 65 72 27 -61 60 -17 65 -4 67 -12 69 -4 71 163 72 20 69 6 22 27 22 28 23 28 16 136 19 -14 18 -33 16 -43 27 -4 19 -86 21 11 20 11 109 581 70 72 72 68 76 76 65 72 67 -4 60 -17 65 -4 67 -12 69 -4 71 6 72 20 69 6 15 17 19 23 13 20 14 98 14 -7 19 12 17 -26 21 5 15 -85 22 57 13 -32 99 482 56 58 69 63 57 70 61 66 54 -4 62 7 66 5 60 -14 62 -6 72 33 58 -6 67 2 23 25 18 41 23 19 24 131 19 -17 26 4 13 -68 34 79 22 -83 24 26 23 -12 126 869 71 71 67 80 76 68 75 72 67 -6 72 1 58 -28 76 12 74 3 75 12 75 4 72 24 13 19 10 23 16 12 11 89 17 31 20 5 10 -57 28 133 18 -80 18 6 10 -50 104 940 Results: Percent change for Pre- and Post Administrations of Sensory Processing Measure – OT w/Modulated TL® Sensory Processing Measure Pre-test SOC Post-test VIS HEA TOU BOD BAL PLA TOT SOC VIS Pre-test C1 ( t-score) C2 ( t-score) C3 ( t-score) C4 ( t-score) C5 (t-score) C6 (t-score) HEA % change TOU % change BOD BAL % change % change PLA % change TOT % change Total % change % change 21 16 26 22 12 17 9 97 17 -19 12 -25 16 -38 19 -14 9 -25 14 -18 9 0 74 -24 69 56 76 62 54 67 40 66 63 -9 43 -23 64 -16 55 -11 40 -26 58 -13 40 0 53 -20 20 23 14 33 12 15 25 104 18 -10 20 -13 17 21 35 6 18 50 16 7 22 -12 112 8 68 69 60 74 54 62 76 68 66 -3 64 -7 66 10 77 4 68 26 64 3 74 -3 70 3 23 29 14 32 21 19 23 123 22 -4 25 -14 10 -29 24 -25 16 -24 16 -16 17 -26 96 -22 71 74 60 72 72 68 75 72 70 -1 71 -4 47 -22 64 -11 65 -10 64 -6 67 -11 66 -8 19 32 20 33 28 22 18 143 21 11 23 -28 21 5 17 -48 39 39 18 -18 14 -22 127 -11 67 76 70 75 80 72 69 76 58 -13 74 -3 73 4 66 -12 80 0 73 1 56 -19 75 -1 14 23 19 21 9 12 20 89 10 -29 16 -30 12 -37 15 -29 12 33 12 0 16 -20 72 -19 54 69 69 60 40 50 72 63 44 -19 56 -19 55 -20 43 -28 54 35 50 0 65 -10 52 -17 25 54 13 21 10 18 24 89 18 -28 26 ?? 14 8 30 43 15 50 12 -33 19 -21 106 19 73 69 57 58 43 69 77 60 66 -10 26 ?? 60 5 70 21 62 44 50 -28 71 -8 69 15 Results: Percent change for Pre- and Post Administrations of DeGangi-Berk Test of Sensory Integration– OT only (Controls) Degangi- Berk Test of Sensory Integration Pre-test Post-test Pos Cont Bi-Lateral Reflexes Total Pos Cont Bi-Lateral Motor Integ Reflexes Total Motor Integ Percent Percent Percent Gain/loss Gain/loss Gain/loss Percent Gain/loss A1 28 30 12 70 29 4 33 10 16 33 78 11 A2 25 27 4 56 28 12 33 22 12 200 73 30 A3 25 36 15 76 27 8 30 -17 16 7 73 -4 A4 25 23 12 60 27 8 35 52 16 33 78 30 A5 18 24 13 55 24 33 33 38 15 15 72 31 Results: Percent change for Pre- and Post Administrations of DeGangi-Berk Test of Sensory Integration– OT w/Music Degangi- Berk Test of Sensory Integration Pre-test Post-test Pos Cont Bi-Lateral Reflexes Total Pos Cont Bi-Lateral Percent Motor Integ Motor Integ Gain/Loss Reflexes Percent Total Percent Gain/Loss Percent Gain/Loss Gain/Loss B1 18 23 12 53 21 17 24 4 10 -17 55 4 B2 18 23 12 53 21 17 24 4 10 -17 55 4 B3 26 29 14 69 29 12 39 34 16 14 84 22 B4 19 26 6 51 27 42 31 19 14 133 72 41 B5 6 2 8 11 83 10 400 9 0 30 275 Results: Percent change for Pre- and Post Administrations of DeGangi-Berk Test of Sensory Integration– OT w/ Modulated TL ® Degangi- Berk Test of Sensory Integration Pre-test Post-test Pos Cont Bi-Lateral Reflexes Total Bi-Lateral Pos Cont Motor % change Integ Motor Integ Reflexes % change Total % change % change C1 25 36 9 70 25 0 33 -8 13 44 71 1 C2 17 24 10 51 20 18 25 4 11 10 56 10 C3 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 0 -9 0 -9 0 -9 0 C4 27 24 10 61 26 -4 28 17 12 20 66 8 C5 17 10 10 37 20 18 19 90 12 20 51 38 C6 14 12 12 38 21 50 20 67 14 17 55 45 Our present study . . . The Results • The primary limitations: • Lack of adequate funding severely limited the N • Severity level of the subjects may have been a factor • (Was testing done on “good day/bad day?”) • Recommendations for further study and analysis • Re-analyze these data, using the Bootstrap Method (explain) • Use the results of this study to apply for increased funding (external v. internal funding sources) • Replicate the study, using multiple sites to increase the N Our present study . . . Discussion • Recommendations References “Koo-Koo-Kah-Choo, Koo-Koo-Kah-Choo-Kah-Choo I am the Walrus”