Help!! What would be best to treat unerlying LD problems

I would not recommend PACE until you are sure all sensory/motor issues have been addressed. It is expensive (around $2,000 per child where we live), and any unaddressed sensory/motor issues limit the cognitive gains from it.

Your medical insurance will probably cover a CAPD eval for your daughter. Because of the counting issues, and only remembering the last part of what you read, I would strongly recommend the CAPD eval for her. Be sure the audiologist is trained to assess CAPD (most are not). I don’t have the website handy at the moment, but there is one with a search engine that locates CAPD audiologists in your area. (I will post the website when I have a chance.) If you have a choice when you do the search, CAPD audiologists associated with major medical centers or universities tend to be the most thorough and up-to-date.

I would certainly purchase Audiblox and use it with both children. For $80 you can get the book, video (really necessary to see how the exercises are done), and a starter kit of manipulatives. Website is http://www.audiblox2000.com

My bet is that Balametrics would help too. You can get a complete kit for about $300. Website is http://www.balametrics.com I would think this would be especially useful for your daughter, since you suspect auditory problems. You may also want to consider NeuroNet for your daughter (http://www.neuroacoustics.com), which incorporates Balametrics into its program. The NeuroNet website has a lot of good information about how auditory problems can interfere with vestibular development and impact the ability to learn. However, you could hold off on Balametrics until you see what happens with Audiblox and the CAPD eval.

A friend of mine got an evaluation from NACD, but I haven’t connected with her to find out how it has worked out. (Her dd’s problems are much more serious than the ones you describe.) I believe she told me the initial evaluation cost about $550, and I think that included a program of activities, but I’m not sure.

My inclination would be to wait on NACD and see how the children do with Audiblox (and the CAPD eval for your daughter). If you are diligent about working 1/2-hour per day with each child, you will have a very good idea at the end of 8 weeks about whether additional therapies are going to be needed. At that time you can re-assess and see what the major needs are. If attention is still a major problem at that time, you might consider Interactive Metronome (http://www.interactivemetronome.com).

Basically, you want to be sure to use your $$$ wisely so that if, down the line, you realize that an expensive therapy is necessary for one of the children (e.g., PACE or FastForWord, or NACD), you have the money to do it.

Mary

Why did you recommend interactive metronome at the end. I though it would help at the same level as BAlmetrics?

Although both Balametrics and Interactive Metronome work on developing the vestibular system, the approaches are very different.

A few of the advantages of IM are (1) it packs a lot of intensity into a short period of time, (2) it includes work with the feet as well as the upper body, and (3) it has a trail of research data that indicates it is useful for training attention. I left it until the end because it is considerably more expensive than Balametrics. If Balametrics isn’t enough to fully develop attention span, then IM might be worth a try.

I really like Balametrics and the theory behind it — makes a lot of sense — but it doesn’t have the kind of research backing that IM has garnered.

Mary

http://pages.cthome.net/cbristol/

Mary

Thanks Mary. You are a wealth of information. Thanks for slowing me down. I will start with the AUDIOBLOX.
Sue

We’ve used Math It successfully for teaching addition.

I increased my son’s reading ability, not by making him read on his level, but by reading tons of books below his level. We started using The True Book series from the library that covers just about any subject you can think of. He also read Cricket magazine. The more he read he would make comments like, I can’t believe I read so much. His confidence increased so much over two years that this year he read the entire Harry Potter series by himself in two weeks. I never thought we would see the day. Our curriculum is basically reading 2-3 hours a day with science experiments and oral math. This seems to really help.

Is it only attention that IM helps? Does neuronet do the same as both of these?

Actually, the major impact of IM is on motor coordination, rhythm and timing. Its effect on attention is secondary, but significant.

The IM approach is profoundly different from the NeuroNet approach. However, I think it would be accurate to describe IM as intensively remediating a subset of the things NeuroNet works on. What I mean is, NeuroNet is a broadly based, comprehensive approach to developing the vestibular system. IM is a much more narrowly focused therapy that works intensively on rhythm, coordination and timing. NeuroNet works on the whole body, while IM is pretty much concentrated on the hands and feet.

If one were going to do both, NeuroNet would come first. It works on a broader and more fundamental level of development than IM. Sometimes a child needs NeuroNet in order to be able to make reasonable gains with IM. IM pre-supposes a basic level of motor planning ability. NeuroNet works on developing that basic level of motor planning ability.

NeuroNet incorporates Balametrics into its program.

Mary

Would you say that it is reasonable for a child with auditory processing, coordination issues, reading issues, (soiling) (9yrs old) to look at this sequence of possible therapy to get results?

In this sequence:

1. Listening Program or some type of sound therapy (Currently child is getting Sensory integration therapy for OT)
2. Neuronet
3. Interactive metronome
4. Audioblox or Pace
5. Currently working on the Wilson Reading (much gain with this)
When would interventions for fluency come in ie. Reading Naturally etc.?

I just want to make sure we don’s skip a step. Mary you are a wealth of information, do you work in this area or just spend an incrediable amount of time researching?

JW

My child is doing NN. The audiologist has incorporated some sound therapy (along with a tuning fork) into his therapy with pretty dramatic results. He now can tell where sounds are coming from. Before, even if the noise was coming directly into one ear, he was clueless.

NN also works with sensory integration issues which my child also has. The theory of it is centered around the vestibular system. Just yesterday I saw something amazing. MY son, who has always rode a bike really fast, was riding very slowly along side me pushing my other son in the stroller. I was amazed. He is ready to pass out the lower level in the two exercises that focus on the vestibular system.

That said, it wouldn’t hurt to do the TLP. You also may not need to do IM after NN. I am still waiting to see on that. My son is now keeping rhythm which he could not do before NN. In fact, we turned to NN after terrible pretest scores on IM. He has major problems with bilaterality which have improved dramatically with NN.

BTW, my son was observed by an IM provider who was interested in NN because of the limits of IM. It is a good therapy, don’t get me wrong, but it is not as comprehensive as NN.

I would keep up the reading training through it all. I also am waiting to see if we need to do fluency training. NN tries to get at the core problems causing fluency problems. I have seen some good improvements but still not completely there. Of course, we aren’t done with it yet.

We are planning to do PACE this summer. I don’t know if it would be necessary after NN if he didn’t also have visual processing problems.

We did FFW before NN. We saw some really nice improvements with it in decoding and auditory memory but he still had remaining problems with auditory processing.

Hope this helps.

Beth

The first thing I would do is find out if your son’s auditory testing qualifies him for NeuroNet. If so, I would concentrate on NeuroNet.

Depending on how all that goes, you could consider adding on or following up with TLP and FFW. (Has your son had a CAPD eval? FFW tends to be the most helpful with auditory decoding deficit.)

IM would be a follow-on to NeuroNet — depending, as Beth notes, on the outcome of NeuroNet. (Personally, I always tend to go overboard and do everything that I think may help even a little, so my inclination would be to plan for IM after NN.)

You could actually start the Audiblox now. It is inexpensive (about $80 to get equipped) and would require only about 1/2-hour of work per day 5 days a week. Even though the unaddressed sensory/motor issues will hold back gains in some areas, it’s likely you will still get gains in other areas (visual processing, visual sequencing, visual short-term memory, auditory sequencing, auditory short-term memory, pattern recognition, etc.).

I would drop Audiblox after sensory/motor therapies are completed (NeuroNet, IM, FFW) and just concentrate on PACE at that point. As Beth points out, instruction in decoding skills should continue all through these other therapies.

I prefer Phono-Graphix for reading instruction. PG does a good job of teaching decoding even if the child doesn’t have all the skills necessary for fluency. What happened with our daughter was that PACE gave her the ability to *apply* the decoding skills she had already learned from PG. Because she could already decode (slowly and laboriously), we saw tremendous gains in reading fluency from PACE. However, I don’t knock any program that seems to be working for a particular child. You might want to read “Reading Reflex” and see if it makes sense to switch to PG — for a trial run, if nothing else. Parents usually find that it is much more efficient than Wilson (have seen one exception to this, where parent said PG didn’t work but Wilson helped).

Reading fluency would be the very last issue to address (writing and spelling come after reading fluency). If PACE isn’t enough, then you would look at programs such as Read Naturally.

I am assuming you have already checked out developmental vision. The hardest hit kids are those with multiple problems — auditory processing, visual processing, and phonological processing.

I’m just a mother who doesn’t know when to stop researching this stuff!

Mary

Neuronet is not widely available though. There are only a few certified trainers in the U.S. There are several levels of training you have to go through to be able to use the trade name. Other people have some training and incorporate it into what they do. I am fortunate enough to live where the developer of the program lives. I know she takes people long distance but that of course involves travel expenses as well.

If you can’t do NN, I would do TLP or another sound therapy. If your child has decoding deficits (from CAPD exam), I would then do FFW. We did FFW without sound therapy and it was grueling. It took my son 16 weeks to get through the program. I later learned that sound therapy speeds up or even eliminates the need for FFW. I would then do OT and IM. I actually was going to do Somonas sound therapy, OT, and IM to deal with my son’s sensory integration and remaining auditory processing problems (after FFW). We started with IM because we had the opportunity to get the therapy at a discounted rate from a new provider but he tested so poorly on IM that the recommendation was to do some sort of OT before IM. It was at that point I decided to do NN. It has been a good decision.

Beth

Balametrics, since it is easy to do at home.

I know that, aside from Florida, there is a NeuroNet provider in Chicago. Don’t know about other locations, though. It’s possible to do NeuroNet on an out-patient basis (you go for initial program set-up and training for a week, and are sent home with a video to practice exercises for a month before coming back). As Beth noted, this can get expensive.

Mary

We have had CAPD done which showed issues with word retrivial, organizational output deficiet, he showed excessive reversals on the PPS test.
So I am not sure if that means he has an auditory decoding problem and if fast forward would help him. The audilogist did not recommend it but recommended the Wilson and Lips program and EArobics.

I asked the Speech teacher at school if Earobics would help him and she stated that it was too low of level. He is 8 and is reading at 2.5 (almost grade level now).

Do you think Earobics fits in and if Fast Forward would?

We have started Neuronet and OT and I think it is helping.

JW

We have an appt in JUne with a developmental optometrist. We did the regualar eye exam last year. I just got the book Reading Reflex out of the library along with the Multisensory book .

I am glad to here that someone else does a lot of research to and over does it. You can never do enough for your kids.

I think the speech teacher is right, and Earobics is too low a level if he’s reading at 2.5.

Auditory decoding deficit is a specific subtype of CAPD. If you go to the CAPD website and click on the “links” option, about the 4th article down is about subprofiles of CAPD. It lists the characteristics, and you may be able to match them against your test results. I don’t know what the PPS test is — do you mean something other than writing reversals?

My inclination would be to try FFW. Although there’s no guarantee, I expect it would be helpful for the word retrieval problem and maybe even for organizational output. Least expensive way to do it is to self-train using the company’s CrossTrain tutorital ($100) to become a certified provider. If you do this before fall, you can watch for the company’s usual discounted price on FFW. Towards the end of the year, they typically discount it from $850 to $650 for a brief period of time. (You have to be a certified provider to be able to order FFW.)

A lot of audiologists won’t recommend FFW because it lacks independent research confirming its effectiveness.

Mary

For what it is worth, FFW didn’t help word retreival at all for my son. We saw major gains in receptive language (following conversations) and auditory memory (now low average). He now tests normal for receptive language. My son was the classic profile of decoding issues that FFW seems to help most. He also has word retreival problems, among other issues.

Beth

about FFW and word retrieval? As I recall, several parents posted that FFW helped word retrieval for their children — in response to my post saying that I thought it didn’t help!

Oh, well. Maybe eventually I’ll get it right…..

Mary

I’ve looked at the Scientific Learning website and was wondering if the providers are audiologists? What is the alphabet soup that would follow an audiologist’s name?

Thanks,
Jess

Mary,

No, I can’t say I do but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t. Word retreival seems to be a multi-faceted problem. My experience with Neuronet has taught me that the same symptoms can have different causes. So the fact that we saw no improvements in word retreival with our son does not mean necessarily that someone else would not. My son’s problems with word retreival, according to the audiologist, are due to inefficiencies in processing rather than deficits. In other words, everything is working but just not fast enough.

Still, I don’t think word retreival is the focus of FFW and I would pursue other therapies first, unless FFW was needed for decoding issues. As I read the CAPD models, word retreival and organizational issues are “caused” by different part of the brain than decoding issues. The strength of the program is clearly its ability to speed up a child’s ability to comprehend language—which may influence a number of other processes, depending on the child. For example, some children seem to experience great gain in both receptive and expressive language through FFW. We got the receptive, which is the focus of the program, but never saw any carry over to expressive. I can only conclude that what is holding my son’s expressive language back is not addressed in FFW.

Beth

Hi Mary,

My daughter has been doing NeuroNet since last June and making huge process in verbal fluency, auditory localization, and general alertness and ability to cue in to her environment. She is gradually improving her ability to maintain eye contact in conversation, and keep her eyes still in general. She is improving her reading ability dramatically — perhaps this is a direct result?! She is not dyslexic and has no formal LDs but she is dxed with CAPD, speech pragmatics difficulties, and probably has some SI issues as well. Repetitive math computations are tough for her but she is really good at the concepts in small doses.

I have been wanting to connect with other moms who have done the program or are in the process of it and who would like to share the highs and lows.

Please e-mail me if you would like to “chat.”

Thanks,

Eugenie

I am interested in using the Balametrics program. I was wondering if anyone who has used this program can give me informationon on which home kit to buy?