Parents, teachers, and people who themselves experience sensory and movement differences have consistently reported disturbances of sensation and movement associated with autism. Our review of the literature has revealed both historical and recent references to and research about sensory and movement difference characteristics and symptoms for individuals with autism. What is notably infrequent in this literature, however, is research that highlights the perspective of the individual with autism. If we wish to truly understand the experience of sensory and movement differences for individuals with autism, we must explore their experiences and perspectives. This study presents a qualitative analysis of more than 40 h in-depth inquiry into the lives of five individuals with the autism label. Data were sorted into six categories: perception, action, posture, emotion, communication, and cognition. The insights into sensory and movement differences and autism offered by these individuals was illuminating. We found that the data strongly supported the presence of disruption of organization and regulation of sensory and movement differences in the lived experience of these participants with autism. The present data suggests that in autism this disruption of organization and regulation is amplified in terms of quantity, quality, intensity, and may affect everyday life. These data contribute to a more expansive view of autism that incorporates the possibility that autism is a disorder that affects motor planning, behavior, communication, the sensory motor system, and the dynamic interaction of all of these.

For decades autism has been defined as a triad of deficits in social interaction, communication, and imaginative play. Though there is now broad acknowledgment of the neurological basis of autism, there is little attention paid to the contribution of such neurological differences to a person's development and functioning. Communication, relationship, and participation require neurological systems to coordinate and synchronize the organization and regulation of sensory information and movement. Developmental differences in these abilities are likely to result in differences in the way a person behaves and expresses intention and meaning. The present paper shares our emerging awareness that people may struggle with difficulties that are not immediately evident to an outsider. This paper explores the symptoms of sensory and movement differences and the possible implications for autistic people. It provides a review of the history and literature that describes the neurological basis for many of the socalled behavioral differences that people experience. The paper emphasizes the importance of our acknowledgment that a social interpretation of differences in behavior, relationship, and communication can lead us far away from the lived experience of individuals with the autism label and those who support them. We suggest alternative ways to address the challenges faced by people with autism.

Article Descriptorsbehavior management; severely handicapped; pragmatics; functional analysis; communication; antecedent management; functions of behavior; non-aversive; assessment This paper presents some issues related to the assess ment of possible communicative Junctions of aberrant behavior. These issues are addressed in terms of both the behavioral and the pragmatics literature, with the suggestion that the latter can be drawn upon to sup port and enhance the information derived from tradi tional functional analyses of behavior. Included are an assessment strategy and tool that can be used to for mulate and test hypotheses about functions of behavior.

This article reviews the research and clinical literature that has investigated the topography and functions of eye-to-face gaze in normal children and adults. These data and data from a recent pilot study are then compared to the criteria typically used in eye-contact training programs with autistic children. This comparison reveals some educationally relevant discrepancies between the normative data and the training criteria. The need to base educational interventions for autistic individuals on normative standards is discussed, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Currently, educators lack longitudinal data measuring both the qualitative and quantitative outcomes of various educational interventions used with handicapped students. As a result, there is no reliable standard to use when designing instructional programs which meet the “criterion of ultimate functioning ” (Brown, Nietupski, & Hamre-Nietupski, 1976). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption is presented as an interim standard to use until such data are available. The criterion of the least dangerous assumption holds that in the absence of conclusive data educational decisions ought to be based on assumptions which, if incorrect, will have the least dangerous effect on the likelihood that students will be able to function independently as adults. The use of the criterion of the least dangerous assumption in instructional program design, parent involvement, and student evaluation of students with autism is illustrated.