Hi folks,

Has anyone had experience with correcting "retained reflexes" from infancy. These are a set of reflexes that serve us well as babies, but are usually integrated within the first year of life. The Moro reflex (the one where the baby startles when falling asleep) is the only one had had heard of before recently.

My son completed his vision therapy with great results when he was in third grade. Then at the end of sixth grade, we discovered that he needed to do another round. His eyes were back to skipping all over the page. It's unusual for kids to have to repeat it. He has lower muscle tone in general, and I know from his earlier years of OT that finer muscle control follows the development of gross motor control. So in poking around more, I've found a series of websites talking about these reflexes. I had my sone do the basic tests, and he has several of them. People seem to be making the connection between these primitive reflexes and a variety of muscle tone/learning difference issues. What is being said makes sense based on my son's experience. But of course there doesn't seem to be a lot of published research. It seems to be resolved by doing exercises that look a lot like things we once did in OT.

Has anyone else worked on this with their children? How much of a time commitment was it? Did it benefit the child? How? Did you think it was worth the investment?

Many thanks for any info!

This is another area where you may want to be careful. The scientific evidence for this is limited.

Flyingmouse, can you explain more? I have a friend who is an OT and she says my DS has this. I haven't looked into it much. He does have low tone.

I'm finding some good exercises, thanks! 5 min a day seems doable. How long until your daughter saw results? And did you see an impact once the reflexes were integrated?

Ultramarina, there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this. It does not make sense from a biological perspective. The presence of primitive reflexes indicates that there is a neurological problem like cerebral palsy because it suggests that neurons are not myelinated correctly. Doing exercises to correct the problem will not cause remyelination of neurons.

Huh. I don't see my son as having problems with sensory integration at all. He shows low tone issues--fatigue when sitting and writing, easily fatigued in general, "floppy," ankles roll in, hyperflexible. His ped mentioned CP as a possible concern when he was baby and people were freaking out about him, but he had a neuro consult that came up clean except for unexplained hypotonia.

DS has DCD and I took him to a ped. neurologist when he was 4 1/2. The neurologist mentioned "dyspraxia" but in the report there is no diagnosis of dyspraxia. Here is what it says under motor examination and reflexes:
Normal muscle bulk. He has diffuse mild hypotonia. He has appropriate full strength in his bilateral upper and lower extremities. Coordination: No tremor or ataxia. No dysmetria with finger-to-nose testing. Reflexes: Deep tendon reflexes in biceps, pattelar, Achilles tendon 2+ and symmetric. Babinski downgoing biltarally. No ankle clonus. Sensation intact to light touch in four extemeties. Gait: His gain is somewhat flatfooted with running. He can stand on each leg for a couple seconds. He can do a 2-footed jump forward. Pes planus observed with standing."

So from this I concluded that he had mild low tone and flat feet. Is there anything else useful? Of course this is from almost 4 years ago so who knows how things have changed. He still has issues with coordination.

She did blood testing to look for muscular dystrophy, because DS was complaining about his legs getting tired when he walks a long distance, but otherwise that appt. didn't help much. I originally took him because his preschool early chldhood screening was really bad and the screener kept talking about his hand tremors, and other people had mentioned that as well. Since she mentioned "dyspraxia" that was then on my radar, and later on we got a dx of DCD from a neuropsychologist. I wish I had had an actual Dx when he was 4.5 because I could have pushed for a better IEP earlier. All he got at age 4 was speech articulation and I had to take him for private OT and PT.

DS had pretty much normal infant milestones. For instance he was crawling by 8 months and walking well by 12 months, but then we failed to see much progress for the next couple years.
His scores on motor tests went down from average at around age 3 to below the 5th percentile a year or two later.

He is now 8 and can't hang onto a bar with his hands for more than 3 seconds (I have tested this), so I find it hard to believe his muscle strength is normal.

The connection between the muscle groups is what struck me for my son. For example, when he did the "duck walk" with his feet turned outward, his arms and hands turned outward as well. I, however, can turn my feet in and out to walk without there being a connected movement in my arms. He had the connections on other items too.

This also makes sense to me because when my son was much younger, an unusual number of his facial muscles were connected to his eye movements. If his eyes went to the left, then so did his mouth, and plenty of other facial muscles too. It was quite odd, like a small child with the random facial expressions of Tourette's syndrome. One of his VT exercises then was to follow a pencil with his eyes while also singing the alphabet. It was very hard at first, but eventually he got it. Along with the other VT, that issue went away. Thank goodness! People will overlook things in a younger child that they then react to as offputting in an older child/adult.

On the research front, I've observed that there is little in the way of major scientific studies on the topic of retained reflexes. That's why I'm inquiring about people's direct experience. Portia's example with the startle reflex, for example, sounds a lot like my son.

To be honest, on the retained-reflex point, I'm not particularly worried about the research not already piling up 10 feet high. I've learned so much from helping my son work through sensory issues and other learning difference challenges: a) The more scientists learn about how the brain works, the more we realize that we haven't explored and documented scientifically, b) OT, VT, etc. often ask the child/parent to do what look like random, kooky things that turn out to have an impact. c) A general theme that is reiterated again and again in scientific brain research is that how interconnected are physical and mental processes, and that what seem like smaller physical points often manifest in big and surprising ways. d) Even pediatricians and specialized educators don't always know about valuable interventions, so it's up to parents to be alert and determine if something is appropriate for our child.

If I wait for the funding/research to scientifically document every intervention that has improved life for my son, then he would be 50 before we took steps to address anything. Since we are already stuck doing VT, working on these reflexes won't cost us much more in terms of $, and adding 5 minutes of "starfish" or some such to our eye exercise routine isn't a big deal for us. After a few months, we can decide if we are seeing progress and results.

Every family has to evaluate the investment of time and $ for themselves. Forums like this are very helpful in doing that. Thanks!

You may not be searching for the right terms. MD/PhD types usually use the term primitive reflexes in the literature (other names here). Searching by individual reflexes (e.g. Moro reflex) would get more hits. Also, frontal release sign is another technical term. If you use these terms on PubMed and Google Scholar, I guarantee that you'll get more hits than you know what to do with.

But the thing is, as Flyingmouse pointed out, this problem is generally associated with an underlying cause, rather than being something that's studied in and of itself.

This won't make me too popular, I think, but if you don't have a biomedical background, it can be very difficult to get accurate medical information online. This is because the web is full of predatory types and charlatans who talk a good spin but are actually spewing pseudoscience (Seaweed is the best treatment for a thyroid condition!; yes, I've read that).

Using technical terms in a search instead of popular terms helps a lot. Also, if you know how to recognize reputable sites, you'll find reliable information more easily. These sites include university medical centers, .gov and other government sites outside the US, major hospitals like the Mayo Clinic and St. Jude's, and sites with a badge called HonCode). As an example, Dr. Mercola's site is NOT trustworthy. Predatory sites like his excel at telling people lies that make them feel good while not solving problems (or making them worse).

I agree that medical decisions are personal, but also know they're best made when based on sound information. This helps avoid interventions that are useless or potentially harmful (e.g. seaweed-and-the-thyroid and anti-vax stances). It also helps you get to the right treatment with minimal delay.

I started working in the area of rare diseases 15 years ago. I know how difficult and frustrating it is to get a diagnosis. I also know how easy it is for an MD to look at an array of clinical features and not be able to see the forest for the trees --- and how easy it is for the predators to take advantage of those facts.

I'm currently privileged to be leading a project that involves a free software app aimed at helping diagnose rare diseases. The whole point of what we're doing is to ease the very messy diagnosis problem described in basic terms above. I also know that the research community doesn't have all the answers, even when there is a diagnosis. But the thing is that, it's the best we have right now.

I noticed our optometrist is addressing some of these reflexes in our vision therapy (it seems to be a common element in VT). Certainly, there are some things DD is surprisingly unable to do, especially if they involve coordinating movement across both sides of her body. Some relief in knowing that the American Optometry Association clinical guidelines do include this aspect in vision therapy reccomendations.

I found searching "visual motor integration" avoided much of the snake oil produced by googling terms like "primitive reflexes".

A quick search of "primitive reflexes" turns up a number of journal-published studies indexed at the U.S. National Institute of Health. While more research is needed, there is plenty of evidence that scientists are noticing a trend and are specifically investigating the connection between learning differences and these reflexes:

Persisting primitive reflexes in medication-naïve girls with attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788695/

Adults with sensorimotor disorders: enhanced physiological and psychological development following specific sensorimotor training
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788695/

Increased whole-body auditory startle reflex and autonomic reactivity in children with anxiety disorders
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702449/

Motor Function in School-Aged Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Korea
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4124178/#B18




It's a giant leap from anything that I've posted previously to the suggestion that I don't use "sound information" in making decisions. "Sound information" can come from multiple directions--including personal experience and the experiences of other (parents and professional OT, VT and others). Scientific evidence (of which a limited amount does exist on this topic) adds validity by documenting whether personal experiences apply more universally. Given the variability of research interests and funding, however, the amount of available scientific research is not my only criteria for decision-making. Nor is how widespread an intervention is known within the primary medical structure. The kids' pediatricians, for example, have been absolutely no help with any of my son's issues over the years. If we hadn't made decisions based on our own layman's research and personal experience, then my son would not have made the tremendous growth that he has made.

This article may be of interest:

http://www.oepf.org/Viewpoint-Correcting-Clinical-Facts-Abnormal-Primitive-Reflexes

Clb-- issues I see are:

1. Most real articles from the primary literature about primitive reflexes suggest that they exist in older children because of some sort of neurological issue. This does not prove that suppressing the reflexes will correct the neurological issue.
2. The few articles that do exist are written by a very small pool of individuals and are not accepted by mainstream scientists. However, even their claims are extrapolated far beyond what is shown in the actual research by clinicians who do not have training in this area.
3. As children age, some developmental issues will resolve. This makes it difficult to assess whether the improvement is due to therapy or increased maturity. Relying on word of mouth means that you may receive false information about the efficacy of costly and dangerous treatments. For example, research suggests that vision therapy is useless unless you are dealing with convergence insufficiency. Similarly, chelation therapy does not cure autism and avoiding vaccinations does not prevent autism. I actually wish that the moderators would delete threads where individuals strongly advocate for unproven treatments.

I agree completely.

As I noted, I understand the frustration people feel when facing medical uncertainty. However, as someone who understands the damage caused by pseudoscience, I get very upset when I see this kind of stuff being promoted and accepted so willingly. The ironic thing from my perspective is that, when I post on this topic, people get irritated or angry with me, even though I'm actually trying to help. I'm not trying to be mean. I know it hurts to hear someone question something you have so much faith in. The thing is, many pseudoscience practitioners use frustration with mainstream medicine to prey on people. They know that parents/adult patients are justifiably unhappy with the system, and they use the situation to their advantage. But they're nice about it. They smile and nod sympathetically and relate to scared people way better than most harried MDs do. But it's often an act designed to get your credit card.

I'm sure that some pseudoscience types actually believe this stuff. That's just as bad, due to stupefying levels of ignorance about science and medicine. One of the most frustrating things in this regard is that the woo is just so obvious to life scientists/clinical types, and yet we can feel completely impotent about getting the message out.

Put another way, I'm a grownup gifted kid who was lucky enough to get an education that lets me recognize this stuff...and I kind of thought that teaching kids to be able to think critically was the whole point of this forum.

The issue with your posts is not the discussion about scientific information. The problem is that you extend your argument into the realm of personal attack by accusing others of not also being critical thinkers. You aren't the only grownup gifted kid with an education on this forum.




I'm not "strongly advocating" anything. I posted an inquiry to find out about others' direct experiences with an intervention. I spoke only about my own decision making processes and experiences, and supported the idea that each family's decisions are very individualized. Rather than sharing your information and letting the conversation continue, you and Val hijacked the thread so that it has no room for thinking about a question from different directions and is no longer a comfortable space for people to share their direct experience. I wish moderators would be on the lookout for that type of behavior.

I think we can all consider this conversation concluded (I know I won't be replying again). Thanks to those who posted about their experiences. Thanks to Val and FlyingMouse for posting info about the questions about this among the scientific community (it's the tone and personal attacks that are unappreciated).

I appreciate the information posted here. The OT I spoke with about this would never in her wildest nightmares suggest chelation therapy. I believe she was trained in this whole retained reflex thing in school or somehow professionally, which leads me to think that this is a grayer area of confusion or controversy? Right now I am not so concerned with reflexes. My son clearly has weak core muscles and we're just working on some basic exercises so it's easier for him to sit at his desk and write.

I think it's very interesting if there is a link between retained reflexes and other disabilities like DCD or learning problems. But I wouldn't try any therapy that attempted to correct the retained reflexes unless there is solid research supporting it (unless it looked promising, was very cheap, and not potentially harmful). I felt the same way about VT. It was recommended by an OT but rejected by the opthamologists. I would have done it if we knew for sure that DS had convergence insufficiency, but there was disagreement about that. He had obvious convergence insufficiency after brain trauma, but it resolved on it's own as the 6th cranial nerve healed. A lot of the controversy surrounding VT seems to be about what actually defines convergence insufficiency. I wouldn't be surprised if some vision therapists diagnose just about everyone who walks through the door with convergence insufficiency, even if those people are actually in the normal range and their vision has nothing to do with their difficulties.

I haven't found any scientific information supporting the use of vision therapy for what is called retained reflexes. But I've found a lot that debunks it.

The paper that Flyingmouse linked to was written by a man who discovered a connection between learning disabilities and retained primitive reflexes. Here's what he and a colleague wrote two years ago:


The paper then debunks a long (but only partial!) list of tests and therapies based on primitive reflexes, like the one spaghetti mentioned, which is debunked in great detail on pages 140-141:



Here's another one promoted by a member here:


The Duck walk/Moro reflex connection is also debunked --- again, in detail (page 139). The authors write:


I'm sorry if anyone here feels personally attacked. I'm not attacking anyone on this list. But I am attacking pseudoscience. And that is a good thing.

Chiming in because I really appreciate when people with more expertise than I offer information.

I didn't read anything as personal but also am not particularly sensitive about such things.

There is so much information to sift through and it would be quite easy for a predator to take advantage of a vulnerable population (concerned, confused parents, for instance).

Not such a big deal if the proposed interventions are harmless and affordable, but people can and do go into debt in search of miracle cures and that is tragic.

I'm not really bothered by the discussion, but I have just very surface knowledge here and no particular dog in this fight.

My OT friends did not suggest vision therapy for my DS at all, but rather various physical exercises.