A Multidimensional Investigation of Sensory Processing in Autism: Parent- and Self-Report Questionnaires, Psychophysical Thresholds, and Event-Related Potentials in the Auditory and Somatosensory Modalities

Abstract

BackgroundReconciling results obtained using different types of sensory measures is a challenge for autism sensory research. The present study used questionnaire, psychophysical, and neurophysiological measures to characterize autistic sensory processing in different measurement modalities.MethodsParticipants were 46 autistic and 21 typically developing 11- to 14-year-olds. Participants and their caregivers completed questionnaires regarding sensory experiences and behaviors. Auditory and somatosensory event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded as part of a multisensory ERP task. Auditory detection, tactile static detection, and tactile spatial resolution psychophysical thresholds were measured.ResultsSensory questionnaires strongly differentiated between autistic and typically developing individuals, while little evidence of group differences was observed in psychophysical thresholds. Crucially, the different types of measures (neurophysiological, psychophysical, questionnaire) appeared to be largely independent of one another. However, we unexpectedly found autistic participants with larger auditory Tb ERP amplitudes had reduced hearing acuity, even though all participants had hearing acuity in the non-clinical range.LimitationsThe autistic and typically developing groups were not matched on cognitive ability, although this limitation does not affect our main analyses regarding convergence of measures within autism.ConclusionOverall, based on these results, measures in different sensory modalities appear to capture distinct aspects of sensory processing in autism, with relatively limited convergence between questionnaires and laboratory-based tasks. Generally, this might reflect the reality that laboratory tasks are often carried out in controlled environments without background stimuli to compete for attention, a context which may not closely resemble the busier and more complex environments in which autistic people’s atypical sensory experiences commonly occur. Sensory questionnaires and more naturalistic laboratory tasks may be better suited to explore autistic people’s real-world sensory challenges. Further research is needed to replicate and investigate the drivers of the unexpected association we observed between auditory Tb ERP amplitudes and hearing acuity, which could represent an important confound for ERP researchers to consider in their studies.

Examining the Latent Structure and Correlates of Sensory Reactivity in Autism: A Multi-site Integrative Data Analysis by the Autism Sensory Research Consortium

“…Personalized interventions that seek to assess an autistic child's speci c pattern of sensory reactivity differences and ameliorate challenges associated with each domain could also be assessed within this framework, using modality-speci c assessments of each sensory response pattern to monitor the effectiveness of each putative "active ingredient" of the intervention. A shift in measurement practices will also allow researchers to associate these single-modality behavioral subconstructs with psychophysical and/or neurophysiological measures within a given modality (e.g., 74,75), informing theories of the neurocognitive underpinnings of certain types of sensory reactivity in autism (e.g., 39,149,150). Though we do not claim a single-modality perspective to be advantageous in all cases or for all research questions (particularly for those focused on "real-world" multisensory contexts), we believe that a greater diversity of theoretical approaches and frameworks within sensory autism research is needed to make optimal progress towards improving the lives of autistic people within this line of work.…”

“…Determining the most appropriate "level of analysis" (supra-modal versus modality-speci c versus some combination of the two) for these sensory constructs has major implications for other areas of sensory autism research, as this decision will impact whether modality-speci c or supra-modal sensory constructs are assessed by diagnostic/phenotyping instruments, targeted by clinical interventions, correlated with other individual differences, explained with neuroscienti c or psychological models (e.g., multiple forms of sensory reactivity having a shared underlying mechanism or cause versus separate mechanisms [or even multiple mechanisms] being proposed for each form of sensory reactivity), and even incorporated into the diagnostic criteria for autism. Thus, additional research is needed to more conclusively determine whether sensory reactivity differences in autism are most appropriately studied at the level of a response pattern score (HYPER, HYPO, or SEEK) combined across modalities (e.g., 28,65,81-84), at the level of modality-speci c response pattern scores (e.g., 74,[76][77][78][79]85), or some combination of the two (e.g., interpreting both types of scores; favoring one level of analysis at different points in a study based on the research question or the speci c construct(s) being studied).…”

“…In contrast to studying HYPER, HYPO, and SEEK at the supra-modal level, a minority of studies (e.g., 25,[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] have investigated these sensory constructs in a modality-speci c manner by calculating response pattern scores that are limited to a single sensory modality (e.g., "Auditory HYPER," which re ects the sum score of only the HYPER items within the Auditory modality). As psychophysical and neural measures of sensory function (e.g., detection thresholds, psychometric function parameters, evoked potential amplitudes) are frequently limited to a single sensory modality, some researchers theorize that the modality-speci c subconstructs represented by these measures will correlate more strongly with sensory reactivity measures that are limited to that same sensory modality rather than collapsed across modalities (e.g., visual evoked potential amplitudes may be expected to correlate moreso with a measure of Visual HYPER than with general HYPER).…”

Perceptual alterations in the relationship between sensory reactivity, intolerance of uncertainty, and anxiety in autistic children with and without ADHD

“…Since different perceptual processes such as detection and discrimination involve distinct mechanisms, their unique associations to behavioral measures allow a better understanding of the specific biological processes that govern those relationships. Studies using psychophysics have revealed altered sensory processing in autism across multiple sensory domains (e.g., tactile, auditory, and visual), as well as different subdomains (e.g., detection and discrimination; Bonnel et al, 2010;Dwyer et al, 2022;He et al, 2021b;Heaton et al, 2008;Puts et al, 2014Puts et al, , 2017Tavassoli et al, 2011). Recent findings within the tactile domain have shown that differences in perceptual ability were related to several core traits of autism, such as social and communication differences (Bryant et al, 2019;He et al, 2021b;Ide et al, 2019).…”

Perceptual alterations in the relationship between sensory reactivity, intolerance of uncertainty and anxiety in autistic children with and without co-occurring ADHD

“…In contrast to questionnaire-based measures, psychophysical approaches can provide a more objective measure of sensory processing, owing to their ability to probe lower-level perceptual function, and therefore linking to neural responding patterns (Read, 2015). Studies using psychophysics have revealed altered sensory processing in autism across multiple sensory domains (e.g., tactile, auditory, and visual), as well as different sub-domains (e.g., detection and discrimination) (Bonnel et al, 2010;Dwyer et al, 2022;Heaton et al, 2008;Puts et al, 2014Puts et al, , 2017Tavassoli et al, 2011). Recent findings from our lab and others, have found that differences in perceptual ability within the tactile domain were related to several core traits of autism, such as social and communication differences (Bryant et al, 2019;Ide et al, 2019).…”