Talk:Sensory processing disorder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Upgrade to C class

I have upgraded this article to C class, however some issues still remain:

• Controversy regarding recognition should be mentioned in introduction, this is quite important
• Could use an image
• Requires significant copyediting
• Article contains many unsourced statements
• Article's statements are not written from a third-person passive POV, detracting from their encyclopedic-ness. For example " Each country is encouraged to develop locally relevant programs.[14]" should be written "The [x organisation] encourages the development of locally relevant programs"
• Specific examples should be written in a more general form, or used as illustrations in the symptoms section. For example: " A child might regularly jump out of his seat in class despite multiple warnings and threats because his poor proprioception (body awareness) causes him to fall out of his seat, and his anxiety over this potential problem causes him to avoid sitting whenever possible" should written in a more general form: "A child's failure to heed warnings or threats may mask an underlying sensory dysfunction" with the example moved to the symptoms section.

I hope this helps improve this interesting and relevant article.

Kind Regards LT90001 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Editing intro for clarity

It was proposed to use a shorter version of the intro to provide clarity. However, I disagree because it deletes information such as multisensory integration being a neurological process (forcing the person to leave the page to understand the basic intro) and deletes the clarification that the term is mainly used in Occupational Therapy. I have reverted to the old one, but save the suggested one to vote whether to leave the new or the old. ThanksChibs007 (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sensory processing disorder (or SPD) refers to a group of neurological disorders relating to multisensory integration. A failure to organize sensory inputs, such as proprioception, vision, auditory system, tactile, olfactory, vestibular system, interoception, or taste, results in difficulties in function.

Sensory processing disorder however, is characterized by significant problems organizing sensory inputs and is manifested by difficulties in the performance in one of more of the main areas of occupation: productivity, leisure and play or activities of daily living.[1]

Previously known as Sensory Integration, Sensory processing was defined by Dr Anna Jean Ayres[2][3] in 1972 as "the neurological process that organizes sensation from one's own body and from the environment and makes it possible to use the body effectively within the environment".

SPD and ADHD

Compiling possible citations for this section SPD and ADHD.

SPD and ADHD collection may take awhile dolfrog (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sensory Integration Dysfunction

Corrected from previous version to have language that does not creates confussion

Welcome User:ASI2020_Vision to this editing group! To the rest of the team User:Dmarquard User:Lova_Falk User:Dolfrog User:LT910001 User:Dawnfillinger User:Lova_Falk Gordonofcartoon Soontobephd User:Yobot User:CoreyemotelaUser:Mogism User:Rjwilmsi [[User:Graham87] ]User:Magioladitis User:Dratman User:Anrnusna I might have missed someone. Feel free to add or answer.

User:ASI2020_Vision has made the change from Sensory processing disorder (SPD) (formerly known as "sensory integration dysfunction") to Sensory processing disorder (SPD) (also known as sensory integration dysfunction). While still refered by many by the last term, there is no diagnosis manual using the term, so it might be confusing information by Wikipedia standings.

Though a minor change, it might prove a highly interesting debate point: In the field that studies and works with SPD, Occupational Therapy, currently there is no concensus in terminology between Ayres Sensory integration group and other schools of thought. In order to avoid Wikipedia:Edit warring I will revert just one time to remain within the 3 revert rule and suggest discussion is held here until decision is taken and we follow the group concensus. If solution is not arrived through the editing group, we could use the Request Comment option.

* Against Chibs007 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 

Since the article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, in order to achieve B or A rate it is not in the best interest for the article to use terminology not accepted in any diagnostical manual. I suggest that section Ayres model can be expanded by User:ASI2020_Vision to comply with their group objectives without entering Disruptive editing or Tendencious editing. Also, a larger new article on Ayres model could be created! (now I am getting greedy!!!)

I don't understand why you'd want to say "formerly" instead of "also", since the term "sensory integration dysfunction" appears in tons of books since 2000. Is there evidence that shows that the condition is no longer known as "sensory integration dysfunction"? Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point @Dicklyon:. User:ASI2020_Vision now User:ElDelRey1 changed it again anyway and since there is now more concensus, I will leave it like that.

Further reading

Ok - why are these here? What is their general, secondary source relevance to the article per WP:MEDRS? "Further Reading" is not just a dustbin for primary citations that editors want showcased. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Case-Smith, Jane. (2005) Occupational Therapy for Children. 5th Edn. Elsevier Mosby: St. Louis, MO. ISBN 0-323-02873-X
• Biel, Lindsey, OTR/L and Peske, Nancy. (2005, 2009) Raising A Sensory Smart Child. Penguin: New York. ISBN 0-14-3115340, website: http://www.sensorysmarts.com
• Heller, Sharon, Ph.D., 2003. "Too Loud, Too Bright, Too Fast, Too Tight: What to do if you are sensory defensive in an overstimulating world.", Quill: New York. ISBN 0-06-019520-7 or 0-06-093292-9 (pbk.) ((Focuses on Adults))
• Herbert JD, Sharp IR, Gaudiano BA (2002). "Separating fact from fiction in the etiology and treatment of autism: a scientific review of the evidence". Sci Rev Ment Health Pract. 1 (1): 23–43.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Occupational Therapy for Children does have a chapter "Sensory integration / L. Diane Parham, Zoe Mailloux" as per content listing but would have to ask the editor who added the book or one who has read the book as to its relevence to this article. dolfrog (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Raising a sensory smart child : the definitive handbook for helping your child with sensory processing issues" listed content and summary dolfrog (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Too loud, too bright, too fast, too tight : what to do if you are sensory defensive in an overstimulating world" listed content and summary dolfrog (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Separating fact from fiction in the etiology and treatment of autism: A scientific review of the evidence." From reading the various secondary review papers in my own PubMed Sensory Processing Disorder paper collection there is some association between SPD and ASD. And this paper also features on the Research Autism web site dolfrog (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• against I disagree , i have a SPD child, parents need firther reading unless you want to print the pages.it difficult, and as a parent I needed to know ehre to go to read, by myself and figure out my next step for my son. The books listed are widely acceptted as the best in this field, please keep this section in! `Dfillinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnfillinger (talk • contribs)

• against I think the same as editor Dfillinger. Books are recognized, indeed, we could add at least 2 more.

Chibs007 (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sensory integration vs sensory processing

Hi guys, I am coming to this page because I learned today that the SPD page has eaten the sensory integration dysfunction page not too long ago. I am quite alarmed by this action, by the content of the SPD page that claims to inform about sensory integrative dysfunction, as well as the tone of the talk here! "THEIR group" and "OUR goals"... is there a competition going on?!

When I looked things up in Wikipedia I always believed that this was relatively objective information. Unfortunately, the SPD page gives me the impression that information is manipulated intentionally. Let me give you one example that caught my eye just by scanning through: You modified a quote by Dr Ayres that every SI-trained therapist should know to fit your personal preferences. The original reads "Sensory integration is the organization of information blah blah blah". On the SPD page it suddenly reads "Sensory processing is the organization..." even with a reference given, as if Ayres had used the term sensory processing. Another manipulation is the way how Dr Ayres' model is presented as historical and outdated. As you certainly know, Ayres' typology of SI disorder has recently been validated (Mailloux et al., 2011). Among therapists and teachers around the world "SI disorder" is the term that people know and use.

Just to make it clear: I am not considering myself member of any group. I stand for justice, balance, objectivity. I am not dogmatic in the use of either term, sensory processing or sensory integration. I appreciate Lucy's immense research efforts but I do have some serious factual problems with her proposed "nosology" which to me is simply a proposal that was not even well received, and not the universally accepted state of the art as it is presented here.

Why am I writing all of this? I wanted to provide some balanced objective information on sensory integration disorder but each of my attempts was undone within the hour by a user who is obviously affiliated with the SPD page. This feels like harassment! Believe me, it is frustrating! That's why I came to visit the SPD page, and while I love the lots of references, I am generally not happy at what I see here.

I have some suggestions for good cooperation instead of vandalism: 1. Please undo the strange vote on quasi deleting the sensory integration dysfunction page. 2. Please make sure you never make edits without giving a summary and a comment in the talk section (this is also considered good practice on Wikipedia). It is so frustrating when your whole work is gone - as you must know! 3. Please try to get the manipulative aspects out of your page. I'll be happy to help. I guess an outsider has a more objective eye. Regards ElDelRey1 (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you feel like that.

1 You first represented a group. The text on your former user page read: "This user represents a community of professionals dedicated to the proliferation of education and research in Ayres Sensory Integration. Our main goal: Ayres Sensory Integration will have a strong, international presence with demonstrated scholarship, means for valid, comprehensive assessment and pathways for training to ensure the ongoing development, standards of excellence and effective implementation of this important work." You say you are not this user, however, there were not edits done by you and the edits you are talking about are user's ASIS2020_Vision. Hence my assumption.

2 Balance: I did open a discussion and did ask for outside help the moment I read your answer. One reverse process is not harassment. However, changing it again without waiting for consensus is inadequate etiquette. Consensus here might take longer that you want, even months, but you should still follow it. I have not reverted your changes nor will edit on the Sensory Integration Dysfunction page you have created without asking for consensus to undo the merge. I will however ask for 3rd opinion regarding that.

3 Nosology: All the nosologies (except Argentinian one) are described and subject to expansion. The one highlighted is because as I mentioned before, it is the only one published in a Diagnostic Manual and was the one sent to the DSM V for revision.

4 Miller: If there is more research here connected to Miller is because her research is available for free, hence I could read it (not only abstracts) and was able to find the references needed. However, I have not and will not delete or revert the inclusion of other research that complies with Wikipedia. I have no interest in biased information.

Chibs007 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Change in History

As suggested by a member of Wikiproject Medicine, I changed the name title of the models to avoid using names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibs007 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Links to a treatment center added

Unidentified user added links to a treatment center. Are those allowed?--Chibs007 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a lot more research and depth in the treatment section. We can definitely outline some basic treatments that are done. 

Tsung-Yen, C., & Ming-Shiou, K. (2016). A Motion-Sensing Game-Based Therapy to Foster the Learning of Children with Sensory Integration Dysfunction. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 4-16.

Leong, H., Carter, M., & Stephenson, J. (2015). Meta-analysis of Research on Sensory Integration Therapy for Individuals with Developmental and Learning Disabilities. Journal Of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 27(2), 183-206. doi:10.1007/s10882-014-9408-y

Jaegermann, N., & Klein, P. S. (2010). Enhancing mothers' interactions with toddlers who have sensory-processing disorders. Infant Mental Health Journal, 31(3), 291-311. doi:10.1002/imhj.20257

Baranek, G. T. (2002). Efficacy of Sensory and Motor Interventions for Children with Autism. Journal Of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 32(5), 397.

Ghanizadeh, A. (2009). Tactile sensory dysfunction in children with ADHD. Behavioural Neurology, 20(3/4), 107-112. doi:10.3233/BEN-2008-0221

Copyright problem

When I blanked this article last month, I had identified several different copyvios by three different editors, going back as far as 28 February 2013. If that was the full extent of the problem, we could just revert to the last clean version before the first offending edit. But it seems that that would not be enough: it appears that the first substantial version of the article (3 June 2009) was in large part copied/close-paraphrased from this source (as archived on 9 February 2008). A quite unacceptable amount of infringing content is still in the article.

As far as I can see, the page needs to be completely rewritten. I don't have the knowledge or skills (or, quite frankly, the interest either) to do that – sorry! If no-one steps up in the next week or so I'll probably stub the page, leaving the references in place for future use. If anyone does want to start a rewrite, please use the specific page for the purpose, and leave a note here to say you've done so. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

My observation is that when this article was merged the redirect left behind was later hijacked to continue this article. So in theory this page should be a blank and redirect with the relevant data carried over? CV9933 (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Observations: The current version of the "infringed" source is marked as GFDL, which is compatible with Wikipedia, so any copyright infringment would be limited to the difference between the current and the archived version. It appears that the autism-help page was indeed copied from an old version of a WP page, which was developed piecemeal, see history here. If so, I think that the autism-helps page is correct in asserting the GFDL but wrong in failing to state the copyright attribution, which is GFDL-required. Perhaps @Moonriddengirl: can clarify. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I will support blanking as soon as we have an editor lined up so that a stub/article "root stock" can be immediately placed from well sourced (independent, secondary med/science referenced) material, either from the old article, or otherwise. When that blanking and stup-in is done, I will try to assist as much as possible with expanding, but the subject matter is so far outside my area of expertise, that I cannot be a/the principle. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all for comment, and to 189.210.253.53 for starting a rewrite page. I've made a small change to that, and it now seems to me free of infringing content, so I plan to ask for it to be moved into place. Particular thanks to LeadSongDog, whose reading of the history here seems to be (unlike mine!) spot-on, and which saved me from making a fairly large-scale mistake. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Model used

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Multisensory.jpg

Seems odd to me. Is the bottom right key supposed to be superposed on the boxes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.186 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Reestructuring and separating theories, newest research must be added

Sensory Processing/Sensory Integration is now a topic that has at least 3 main models that describe and explain the observations. In this article, all the terminology from all the different models is mixed and turns out to be very confusing for an untrained person (but I lack the skills in Wikipedia editing and fluent English to do it myself).

• The Sensory Integration classical model according to the theory's creator, Dr. Ayres. Her nosology includes: Registry and Orientation difficulties, Sensory defensiveness, Somatodyspraxia, Gravitational insecurity, etc. (developed by analysis of factor clusters)
• Sensory Integration Dunn model, which creates a nosology using response type (passive vs active) crossed with threshold to the stimuli (low or high) creating 4 types: low registration, sensory avoiding, sensory seeking and sensory sensitive.
• The Sensory Processing model, created by Dr Jane Miller, proposes a more neurologically based nosology, with 3 main subtypes, modulation disorders, motor based disorder and discrimination disorders. (reference on the main article)

Recently, more research has been coming out on the neurological causes to SPD that has not been cited, but I do not know how to add and restructure without being tendentious. As well, more recent research refusing SPD must be quoted and I believe it all should be arrange under a controversy section.

References

Chibs007 (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Chibs007

My copy editing skills are almost non existent, due to my auditory processing disorder, especially my word recall issues. I have found a useful summary of recent progress regarding Sensory Processing Disorder which may suggest a format to improve this article. For instance it may be advisable to introduce some new sections and subsections to help catalog the various subtypes of issue that can be part of SPD. The article includes a useful diagram which may help define the various subtypes. dolfrog (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The article by Lucy Jane Miller et al oncept Evolution in Sensory Integration: A Proposed Nosology for Diagnosis was the editorial article for the March /April 2007 issue of the American Journal of Occupational Therapy, most artcles relate to Sensory Processing Disorder, the Table of Contents may provide more citations options dolfrog (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Diagnosis this paper may be useful Reynolds S, Lane SJ (2008). "Diagnostic validity of sensory over-responsivity: a review of the literature and case reports". J Autism Dev Disord. 38 (3): 516–29. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0418-9. PMID 17917804. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) dolfrog (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This paper may be useful in the SPD and ADHD section Ghanizadeh A (2011). "Sensory processing problems in children with ADHD, a systematic review". Psychiatry Investig. 8 (2): 89–94. doi:10.4306/pi.2011.8.2.89. PMC 3149116. PMID 21852983. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) dolfrog (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

84 the link does not work for the article. 42 the article cannot be found using the link. Overall the articles looked well researched, there were a few (25, 85, 3,) that are more than 20 years old and probably shouldn't be used anymore. I am sure there are more modern replacements for those articles.Sjandreau17 (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall the article is well written and easy to understand. Each section is supported with current evidence and includes a lot of detail. There is a time period in the epidemiology section that is vague and could use clarification. --Minardesgaio (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing the listing in the "Sensory discrimination disorder (SDD)" section

The descriptions that had been provided for each of the 7 SDD subtypes did not really add any useful information (e.g., "Ears are used to perceive sounds") given that it was (for most of the subtypes) information that even preschool-aged children know quite well. I thought the inclusion of that information detracted from the quality of the page. I didn't discuss the change here first because it seemed to me to be non-controversial. Regutten (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

That was a left over from the first merger between the Sensory Integration Dysfunction page and Sensory Processing Disorder. I think it had been pointed out in some talk page it needed cleaning. Chibs007 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing the lede -- and the need for a merger

I came to this page after a friend’s child was diagnosed with SPD. I found the page poorly organized and poorly written in places, and after surveying other sources of information about SPD, it’s my impression that the page could be improved in ways that would better reflect the state of our knowledge of SPD. I wanted to start with some comments about the lede, and at some time in the near future will offer some suggestions regarding re-organizing and re-wording other sections.

Comments:

I don’t understand the meaning of the first sentence. What does it mean for “multisensory integration” to “not be adequately processed”. This may simply be a matter of awkward phrasing, but the sentence as written is difficult to comprehend.

The information in the second sentence is not necessary. Everyone knows this already. Accordingly, I suggest starting the paragraph with the 3rd sentence (“Sensory processing disorder is characterized by”).

The final sentence of that second paragraph is awkwardly written, the information presented in the sentence is not sourced and I seriously doubt that the claims presented in the sentence are true (e.g., the claim that tactile, vestibular, and proprioceptive processing difficulties are more common than those associated with other senses).

The first sentence of the third paragraph is a restatement of the definition of SPD. There is no need to define it twice (although the reference to Ayres here is helpful, so perhaps this sentence should replace the sentence from earlier in the lede). The phrasing in the last sentence in that paragraph is quite awkward.

I don’t understand what the diagram adds to the reader’s understanding of SPD. The caption reads “Example of how visual, auditory and somatosensory information merge into multisensory integration representation in the superior colliculus”. The diagram doesn’t do that, except in the most trivial of ways. The diagram simply consists of three boxes that represent 3 sensory systems (somewhere in the brain presumably?) with arrows from each box to a single circle labeled “multi-sensory”. How the information from the different systems is integrated is not explained by the diagram or in the text on the page. I suggest deleting the diagram, perhaps replacing it with some discussion of the role of the superior colliculus in directing behavioral responses toward specific points in egocentric ("body-centered") space, based, in part, on input from different sensory systems (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_colliculus). However, that information would only be relevant in the context of a claim by SPD proponents that abnormalities in the functioning of the superior colliculus are a locus of SPD symptoms. I have not found such a claim in any of the reading I’ve done on the topic, and in any case, there does not appear to be evidence to support such a claim if indeed it has been offered (https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/07/116196/kids-autism-and-sensory-processing-disorders-show-differences-brain-wiring).

Basically, I think the lede of the corresponding SID page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_Integration_Dysfunction) is far superior to the lede of the SPD page, and I think the two pages should be merged, using the lede from the SID page – an avenue I’ll pursue.

Sorry for such a lengthy comment, but I didn’t want to make rather wholesale changes in the SPD page lede without fully explaining why I think changes are needed. Regutten (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This massive edit to the lede removes useful, objective, summary information about SPD, and places undue weight (to say the least) on the controversy. The third and second paragraphs are almost completely devoted to the controversy (and one side of it at that), and the first paragraph refers vaguely to the implications of the disorder rather than to the disorder itself! Those with a deeper understanding than I, should give (or replace) a fair description of SPD in the lede. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Explanation

This is a formal definition, I believe made by Dr. Miller. Maybe what is needed is a quote. It is the more current definition

The information on sense modality I believe, because it mentions more than the regularly known 5 senses, important. But indeed could be integrated in a different way and maybe below?

I absolutely agree with "different people experience a wide range of difficulties when processing input coming from a variety of senses, particularly tactile (e.g., finding fabrics itchy and hard to wear while others do not), vestibular (e.g., experiencing motion sickness while riding a car) and proprioceptive (having difficulty grading the force to hold a pen in order to write)." being awkward. Again a leftover from merger. I vote also for out.

The debate between Ayres followers and Miller followers I think is behind why this first paragraph is so awkward. I believe there can be a better way instead of deletion. Ideas?

Chibs007 (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Concrete proposal for rewording the lede

I propose rewording the lede as follows (almost all of the language below is taken from the current lede, while reordering some of the sentences in deleting some unnecessary verbiage):

Sensory integration was defined by occupational therapist Anna Jean Ayres in 1972 as "the neurological process that organizes sensation from one's own body and from the environment and makes it possible to use the body effectively within the environment". Sensory processing disorder (SPD) is characterized by significant problems in organizing sensation coming from the body and the environment and is manifested by difficulties in the performance in one or more of the main areas of life: productivity, leisure and play or activities of daily living. Different people may experience a wide range of difficulties when processing input coming from a variety of senses, including, but not limited to, tactile (e.g., finding fabrics itchy and hard to wear while others do not), vestibular (e.g., experiencing motion sickness while riding a car) and proprioceptive (having difficulty grading the force to hold a pen in order to write).

Despite its proponents, there is a debate as to whether SPD is an independent disorder. The alternative is that the symptoms described as characteristics of SPD are instead symptoms of various other, more well-established, disorders. SPD is not recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, the most widely accepted compendium of psychological disorders and the criteria for their diagnosis.Regutten (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "despite its proponents," should be deleted as argumentative, as should the final phrase ", the most widely accepted . . . for their diagnosis" as being unnecessary commentary. I don't have the knowledge to opine whether the proposed content is a good summary, and hope more informed editors would weigh in. Minor: At least the direct quote requires specific sourcing. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: "despite its proponents". Will do. Thanks. Re: "the most widely accepted". On that one, I don't agree. Without that information, the uninformed reader has no way to assess the significance of the information. Re: The quote. I'll add the source. I took that directly from what is there now (and has been for years). Regutten (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The phrase ", the most widely accepted . . . for their diagnosis" is editorial commentary and should not be the basis by which "an uninformed reader (can) assess the significance of the information". An internal link to the DSM article will let the reader accomplish the same purpose more objectively. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

How about --

Sensory integration was defined by occupational therapist Anna Jean Ayres in 1972 as "the neurological process that organizes sensation from one's own body and from the environment and makes it possible to use the body effectively within the environment". Sensory processing disorder (SPD) is characterized by significant problems in organizing sensation coming from the body and the environment and is manifested by difficulties in the performance in one or more of the main areas of life: productivity, leisure and play, or activities of daily living. Different people may experience a wide range of difficulties when processing input coming from a variety of senses, including, but not limited to, tactile (e.g., finding fabrics itchy and hard to wear while others do not), vestibular (e.g., experiencing motion sickness while riding a car) and proprioceptive (having difficulty grading the force to hold a pen in order to write).

There is a debate as to whether SPD is an independent disorder; the alternative is that the symptoms described as characteristics of SPD are instead symptoms of various other, more well-established, disorders . SPD is not recognized as an independent disorder by the American Psychiatric Association; accordingly, it is not listed as an official diagnosis in the association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Regutten (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply: Commenting on your (substantive) first paragraph requires more knowledge than I now possess. Regarding your second paragraph:

• Citing a reliable secondary source is needed (ideally a survey scientific journal article is best); in contrast, a Slate article is far from ideal and would probably be considered non-reliable in this medical context;
• Citing the DSM itself constitutes (improper) original research (see WP:OR), and claiming "SPD is not recognized as an independent disorder by the APA" is your personal conclusion based on your own original research.
• Asserting "There is a debate..." is superfluous editorial commentary. That observation, if true, would be implied by the content of pertinent reliable references.

If what you claim is true, there should be an abundance of reliable scientific/medical journal articles that state what you claim. You should quote or closely paraphrase what such articles actually state. Let reliable references be the starting point; let them write your content. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I suggest scholar.google.com to find scholarly articles. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Your comments/suggestions are helpful -- and puzzling. The part that puzzles me:

• Citing the DSM itself constitutes (improper) original research (see WP:OR)

SPD is not listed in the DSM. When making that statement, how could some other source be better than referencing the DSM itself? Are you saying that it is impermissible for an editor to look inside a book and reference the book when making a statement of fact regarding whether certain information is, or is not, in the book? Are you saying it is better to reference someone else who has checked the contents of the book, rather than referencing the book itself when making a statement like "X is not in the book"?Regutten (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

- Basically, yes: you should find a secondary source (WP:Secondary) that affirmatively states what you claim. You, as a Wikipedia editor, are not a reliable source (WP:RS) for stating whether or not something is NOT in the DSM, or for interpreting the significance of that alleged omission. Review WP:OR and especially WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."

- Under appropriate circumstances the DSM could be cited for what it DOES state, but not for what the DSM does NOT state. For you as an editor to say "X" is NOT in the DSM would merely be inserting your personal inference about "X". —RCraig09 (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

- I guess I'm not seeing the problem at this point, as one of the lead's references already says SPD is not in the DSM: UCSF article. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review:

Her research is very apparent based on her writing. Everything is supported by research and she clearly has an understanding of the topic. Her additions to the article display are all neutral and are very well written. I think her additions were smart to enhance the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennykatz (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Classification section disappeared

The classification whole section, which was recommended by task teams in order to achieve better rating as a trusted source disappeared. I am not sure why but I would vote for it to go back as it is presented in the Zero to 3 diagnostic manual or even better, it is currently used by experts in secondary sources Chibs007 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles to include

I have revising new literature publish in the last 14 years. I believe it would be important to include some. I will be listing the one I found more relevant since is a review of literature in SSP and ASD https://www.nature.com/articles/pr9201193 Chibs007 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, SOMETHING should be done about the lede

My revised lede was reverted, without taking into account most of my earlier comments (that I had made before making the changes). So -- at a general level of comment, and in place of getting into a reverting tat-for-tat: As I said before, the first sentence really makes no sense AND claims that SPD and SID are the same thing. The latter is fine with me, but perhaps not others. But that issue needs to be resolved. I didn't think it was controversial to describe SPD as a controversial disorder. I don't understand how one can start the page by saying that "Sensory processing disorder is a condition that exists" when it is not included in the DSM and when it is clear that there is a lot of controversy about whether it IS a disorder. That's why I thought (and think) qualifiers (phrases like "it has been claimed by proponents") should be included in the lede starting with the first sentence. How about simply deleting the first paragraph, and replacing it with the third paragraph? I think that change would address a number of problems with the current version? Regutten (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. A condition's existence is not proven by inclusion in the DSM or disproven by its non-inclusion in the DSM. This article is about SPD, and the definition and characteristics of SPD should predominate in the article and in the lede. Controversies can also be expressed, but placed in context, and should not dominate unless controversy is what dominates in reliable sources--which doesn't seem to be the case here. So, no, the present third paragraph (focusing on controversy) should not be the first-paragraph introduction to an encyclopedia article on the condition. (I re-post part of my 11 Sept paragraph immediately hereafter. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This massive edit {by Regutten} to the lede removes useful, objective, summary information about SPD, and places undue weight (to say the least) on the controversy. The third and second paragraphs {as of Sept 11} are almost completely devoted to the controversy (and one side of it at that), ... —RCraig09 (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC) [reposted by RCraig09 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)]

agree, lede needs change, it comes from the very early work on the article that was before, which happened to be highly controversial and the editors that time had to be very careful with it. Was almost WWII. But I will read carefully the edition. I believe the main definition should not be changed even if it is not to our taste though.

Agree. I lived through the Sensory WWII. Lede should remain scientific and focus on the comprehension of SPD, not the controversy. . ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibs007 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Redundancy

I think the epidemiology section can be removed. It seems redundant and can probably just be included in the introduction. The section doesn't really add anything to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjandreau17 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Epidemiology section was added since article is created following the Neurology task force requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibs007 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Major changes:

Re-organized in what, seems to me, to be a much more logical way. Edited almost every section for readability. Deleted section on "causes", because most what was discussed there did not pertain specifically to SPD and the information was presented at a level that reduced the usefulness of the page for most readers. Integrated a discussion of controversies within each section, rather than having a separate "controversies" section.Regutten (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverted

Reverted changes to sections that had been suggested during the main work by the Neurological task force, specially controversies. Please for any major changes discuss here and wait at least for 2 or 3 months until more editors participate. Now it is very hard to go back and manually reinsert everything. The sections were defined by parameters preestablished. Causes was collected from all the research pertaining more than 50 researchers, in example. Chibs007 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough

Sorry for not having waited long enough before making edits. Will do next time. I had read, and tried editing, the page from the perspective of most people who are likely to visit it -- whose level of technical knowledge about brain structures is likely to be very limited. I guess I don't understand the logic behind inclusion of a "causes" section when the status of the disorder itself is so controversial and when the information provided is so speculative. In any case (and I understand that this section might be required), the first paragraph of this section is not well written or properly sourced. Specifically, the second sentence is a "comma splice" sentence, rather than a grammatically correct sentence. The statement "Sensory processing disorder not only affects interpretation and reaction to stimuli at the midbrain areas" is not sourced (where is the evidence that this specific disorder "affects interpretation and reaction to stimuli AT THE MIDBRAIN AREAS"?). Regarding the "controversies" section. This organization is OK, but again, my reaction to the page is that it's more helpful to mention the controversies in the context of each section that discusses the disorder, rather than having a separate section for that purpose. I also don't understand the logic behind putting the "history" section at the end rather than much earlier on the page. Not a big deal, but it seems like an odd ordering of subtopics.Regutten (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand. The technicalities of the order of the sections are indeed a bit obscure. Check other medical disorders to compare.

I believe the lede now is more clear. Regarding the controversies, is important so speculation is not present. As the autism page, this one has been a very controversial wikipage. 

Sorry for the delay in my answers, I took a break from editing. Chibs007 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Housekeeping

I made a number of minor editing changes to different sections (correcting grammatical errors, adding sources).

A section I still consider problematic is the "Distinguishing SPD from Autism" section. Three problems. 1. The two paragraphs in this section provide a level of detail about two specific research studies which is inappropriate for a page like this. 2. The section "Relationship to other disorders" already provides reference to, and a very brief summary of the findings from, these two studies. 3. This simply should not be its own section. I could see adding a brief summary of these studies in the "Causes" section and/or in the "Relationship to other disorders" section (where a summary currently resides). So -- I suggest this section simply be deleted. Thoughts?Regutten (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

My vague response: My general principle is to go by content as presented by reliable references, rather than by what's in a given section of a Wikipedia article. Essentially, the structure of sections should follow from reliably sourced content. In other words, I would make sentence-by-sentence decisions rather than focus on existing section dividers that have been determined by various (presumably) uncoordinated miscellaneous Wikipedia editors over the years. Let the references speak and organize —RCraig09 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Re:>>I would make sentence-by-sentence decisions rather than focus on existing section dividers that have been determined by various (presumably) uncoordinated miscellaneous Wikipedia editors over the years.

Makes sense, and this page is one whose quality had been particularly negatively impacted by the lack of coordination between different editors (some of the page had read as if it was written by a sixth-grader, while other parts have been written in a style that is inaccessible to anyone without a neuroscience degree). By these criteria, I can't see how any part of the section makes an appropriate or valuable addition to the page. The two paragraphs paraphrase significant parts of the abstracts of the two articles, and the only sources that could be cited for this level of detail are the two original research reports themselves, rather than a secondary source.Regutten (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The neuroscience is my fault! jajaja but I edited following the Neurological task force structure and guidelines, I recommend reading them before deleting the science bit! Chibs007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Repetition

Moreover the authors warned that SIT techniques exist "outside the bounds of established evidence-based practice" and that SIT is "quite possible a misuse of limited resources."[9]

Yo you say this 4 separate times. Take some out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.70.16 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Is innecesary bias. A whole section on controversy already exists. Will change. Chibs007 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Waited a few months to see if someone disagreed with the repetition. Will keep one. Any recommendations of which to keep? Also, source is outdated and is a book, newer research points differently and is already cited in the article. Chibs007 (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Editing for bias

I read the cited chapter. Needs rewriting to avoid bias. The last phrases belong to the book, not the research paper. Can anyone find this paper so it can be read and properly cited? I paste it so once edited it can be re added. The general sense of the paragraph is adequate for controversy section. The authors of the book need to be separated from the authors of the paper.

A 20 review of research on Sensory Integration Therapy (SIT) concluded that SIT is "ineffective and that its theoretical underpinnings and assessment practices are unvalidated." Moreover, the authors warned that SIT techniques exist "outside the bounds of established evidence-based practice" and that SIT is "quite possible a misuse of limited resources."

Chibs007 (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Edited out The checklist of symptoms on the website of the SPD Foundation, for example, includes such warning signs as "My infant/toddler has problems eating," "My child has difficulty being toilet trained," "My child is in constant motion," and "My child gets in everyone else's space and/or touches everything around him." -- "symptoms" which read much like the day-to-day complaints of an average parent. Chibs007 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing to improve in the quality scale in WikiProject Medicine

Please check the manual of style We were recommended several points during the first phase.

1 Most have been followed but we still need more POV and general language.

2 Research section needs to be re written. Following syndrome criteria could be better placed as Mechanism, for information about pathogenesis and pathophysiology.(I have started) to avoid citations of so many primary sources but conserving the advances done in research in the last 10 years. The main terciary sources for SPD have barely been cited.

3 Always omit professional titles and academic degrees: use "Smith" or "Jones" rather than "Dr Smith" or "Prof Jones".

4 Controversy will be included in Society

5 We are missing special populations

6 Considering size of article, creating a Signs and symptoms separate page with the suggested Manual of Style content might be prudent.

7 Lede should be shorter

Chibs007 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Diagnosis tools

It seems to me that there are a lot of tools that can be used for diagnosis. I don't know much about them, but is there a way to find out what the best tools are and highlight/emphasize those in the article? I think this would be helpful for the readers since there seems to be a lot going on here. Hpeabody (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC) hpeabody

The main tools are known but I believe is giving certain publishing companies a spotlight. Maybe deleting the other tests section that are complementary testing but not exclusive sensory processing? Chibs007 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Revised complementary testing. I was not focused on sensory processing so followed suggestion and deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibs007 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)