I was asked to put the case for and against vision stimulation. This is an short outline of my talk. The full outline can be downloaded from the link below.
What is Vision Training?
· VT is for a child who cannot see to encourage them to see
· Initial Assessment: Establish what child can see & present accordingly
o Preferential Looking - Keeler Cards/Cardiff Cards
o Observation / parent questionaire
o Can they see faces/lines/shapes/colours/lights?
· Often small lights/flashing lights gain child’s attention
· Overheard doctor say to parent: “no evidence extra stimulation makes any difference… “
· Research: Paucity of child studies - ambiguous & inconclusive
o Poverty of literature – “there have been few studies to systematically and quantitatively evaluate … patients with CVI” (Good, 2001). (i.e. research into VT for CVI)
o Samples are small / non-robust
o Unethical to withhold from needy child
· May damage child’s self-esteem
· Research: Can also support VT
o Only ‘ambiguous’ because of low incidence/small samples
o Useful studies & papers from a few CVI ‘specialists’
- Ophthalmologists: Good & Hoyt (California); Good & Groenveld (British Columbia); Gordon Dutton (Glasgow); Dr Lea Hyvarinen (Finland)
- Teachers: Lilli Nielsen (Denmark); Roman (California)
Underpinned by three theories:
· #1. The Critical Period
· #2. Brain Plasticity
· #3. The Responsive Environment
The full outline argument is can be downloaded from this link:
VISION TRAINING - DOES IT HELP?