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?
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:
In 1995 an article, “The role of primitive reflexes in the
development of the visual system,” written by one of the authors
(Goddard), was published in the Journal of Behavioral
Optometry. Since that time the authors have been made aware
of an increasing body of incorrect information concerning the
assessment, interpretation, and remediation of primitive reflexes
appearing in publications and training materials disseminated
amongst practitioners of vision therapy and behavioural
optometry.
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:
For example, when he did the "duck walk" with his feet turned outward, his arms and hands turned outward as well.
The Duck walk/Moro reflex connection is also debunked --- again, in detail (page 139). The authors write:
Observations listed under the tests for the Duck and Pigeon
Walks may offer “soft signs” of neurological dysfunction, but
these soft signs do not afford hard evidence of aberrant reflexes.
There can be many reasons for these soft signs – age,
orthopaedic structure, ... familiarity
of the task (list goes on).
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.
