Talk:Auditory processing disorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Editing help needed

This entry is not truly encyclopedic, but reads more like an informational pamphlet, to me. I'm not saying it is inaccurate or poorly written by any means, but what it seems to lack is a comprehensive or coherant explanation for what APD truly is. For this reason it probably deserves a major revision as well as additional information including a diagram or two. FJ | hello 23:48, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Update: I went ahead and added sections for causes and behavioral manifestations, although more editing is probably in order. — FJ | hello 21:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• APD has only recently had one official defintion in both the UK and the USA.

Oct 2004 in the UK and jan 2005 in the USA. Now that the Professionals and academics have decided on the criteria of APD we can now gain more information to match the new more comprehensive definitions, I will add a link to the new ASHA APD technical report. dolfrog

• I have added some content to the template haeadings and saved the new version of the page.

dolfrog

• I have added some text to the template in some recent contributions, but the template seem to not accept the input and reverts to some preset state. my last eddit before the problem arose appears before the version described as Chaos( the result of the preset text). So if a technicla expert could put this right I would greatly appreciate it.

All seemed to be OK when i left it last night, but not now. dolfrog

[edit] Categorization

I object to both the prior and present categorizations of APD. As far as I know, APD is not mental or psychiatric because the problem has to do with the way acoustic signals are received, transition into neural signals and then ultimately pass through neural networks from the ear to the brain for additional analysis (before the ultimate recognition or comprehension and response). I am going to recategorize this into Category:Neurology and Category:auditory system. If there are objections, let's discuss! (When I have time I'd like to tackle the revision as well, but I have contacted some of the original writers through a different group to bring them into the loop). — FJ | hello 23:48, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] some observations

I'm going to delete this line.

Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) is the INVISIBLE disability, which randomly prevents the sufferers from processing auditory (verbal) information. Many APDs have A1 hearing.

What is an "INVISIBLE" disability and why is APD the unique one (I seem to recall diabetes also refered to in this way). Second, what is "A1" hearing? This appears to be one of the "informational pamphlet" bits that add nothing to the discussion. I'll withdraw my objection if there's a credible organization that explicitly calls APD the "invisible disability" or an official definition of "A1 hearing".

Finally, it appears to me that this disorder is a matter of degree or perhaps lack of coping skills. In other words, I suspect everyone has experienced each of the symptoms listed in the vague "Behavioral manifestations" section at some point in the recent past. So just exhibiting all of the symptoms doesn't seem sufficient. My uneducated guess is these symptoms must be severe enough to interfere with a person's day-to-day communication and other activities that most people do relatively easily. Perhaps we should replace this section with the clinical definition (if there is one) of APD? -- KarlHallowell 00:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Doesn't this "observation" seem a bit harsh? You're single handedly brushing off more than fifty years of research as if it were nothing. Yes, your "uneducated" guess may seem right to you, but given the responses of such groups as the ASHA speaking about it, I would hardly brush it off as nothing. These symptoms are significant enough to interfere with a person's day-to-day communication, especially because of the effects it has on memory. Personally, I think the article should stay the same, perhaps more information could stand to be added, but there is no reason to write off this entire article because of your ignorance. SlaserX 23:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In hindsight, I'd have to say that no my statement does not seem too harsh. I'm not brushing off research. I'm pointing out that a list of vague symptoms does not make a disorder. This is a flaw of the article not of the research. And as a result, I agree that more information should be added to the article. In particular, this vague list of symptoms should be replaced with the clinical definition of the disorder, if such a definition exists. I still do not advocate deleting this article. -- KarlHallowell 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)