An Examination of Movement Kinematics in Young People with High-functioning Autism and Asperger’s Disorder: Further Evidence for a Motor Planning Deficit

Abstract

This paper examines upper-body movement kinematics in individuals with high-functioning autism (HFA) and Asperger's disorder (AD). In general, the results indicate that HFA is more consistently associated with impaired motoric preparation/initiation than AD. The data further suggest that this quantitative difference in motor impairment is not necessarily underpinned by greater executive dysfunction vulnerability in autism relative to AD. Quantitative motoric dissociation between autism and AD may have down-stream effects on later stages of movement resulting in qualitative differences between these disorder groups, e.g. "motor clumsiness" in AD versus "abnormal posturing" in autism. It will be important for future research to map the developmental trajectory of motor abnormalities in these disorder groups. KeywordsHigh-functioning autism; Asperger's disorder; Movement kinematics; Motor preparation kinematics; Motor preparation Autism is a pervasive developmental condition defined by impairments in communication, social reciprocity, and repetitive-stereotyped behavioral patterns (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Although motor functioning deficits are widely reported in the literature (Berkeley, Zittel, Pitney, & Nichols, 2001;Beversdorf et al., 2001;Brasic & Barnett, 1997;Ghaziuddin, Butler, Tsai, & Ghaziuddin, 1994;Manjiviona & Prior, 1995;Miyahara et al., 1997;Rinehart et al., 2001a), there is debate about how to describe and define motor abnormalities in this population (e.g. clumsy movement versus poorly coordinated movement versus poorly planned movement), and debate about whether the nature of motor

What can autism teach us about the role of sensorimotor systems in higher cognition? New clues from studies on language, action semantics, and abstract emotional concept processing

“…Autistic deficits in motor preparation (Rinehart, Bellgrove, et al, 2006;Rinehart et al, 2001), call into question the integrity of frontostriatal motor loops, which are indeed structurally and functionally atypical in ASC (Chukoskie, Townsend, & Westerfield, 2013;Di Martino et al, 2011;Langen et al, 2009;Takarae, Minshew, Luna, & Sweeney, 2007). Specific examination of the structural integrity of basal ganglia and their relationship to motor performance in grip strength, finger tapping and pegboard performance failed to reveal a correlation or abnormalities in a large group of autistic individuals between 8 and 45 years of age (Hardan et al, 2003).…”

“…Some paradigms have required participants to grip an object wherein selecting the easiest initial movement may lead to an uncomfortable end-point (van Swieten et al, 2010). Some studies reveal slower or impaired motor planning (Mari, Castiello, Marks, Marraffa, & Prior, 2003;Rinehart, Bellgrove, et al, 2006), but others do not (Stoit et al, 2013;van Swieten et al, 2010); a later study showed that movement preparation time was not significantly longer in ASC but significantly more variable (Dowd et al, 2012), which may explain (along with the small sample sizes in several of these studies) why it is sometimes observed and sometimes not. Other studies show difficulties reprogramming planned movements (Nazarali et al, 2009;Rinehart et al, 2001).…”

“…A risk with these studies is that the validity of their findings relies on initial, accurate categorization of participants; the lack of differentiation between AS and HFA, in the case of Manjiviona and Prior (1995), is likely to reflect invalid categorization based on the diagnostic manuals of the time. Some studies find greater motor deficits in individuals with HFA than those with AS (Behere, Shahani, Noggle, & Dean, 2012;Ghaziuddin & Butler, 1998;Green et al, 2009;Papadopoulos et al, 2012;Rinehart, Bellgrove, et al, 2006), others find the opposite picture (Iwanaga, Kawasaki, & Tsuchida, 2000), some find deficits of different types in both groups (Rinehart et al, 2001), and some find no statistical difference between groups (Jansiewicz et al, 2006;Noterdaeme, Mildenberger, Minow, & Amorosa, 2002). Some of these studies have very small samples (Behere et al, 2012;Ghaziuddin & Butler, 1998;Iwanaga et al, 2000;Rinehart, Bellgrove, et al, 2006;Rinehart et al, 2001), casting doubt on their findings.…”

“…Some studies find greater motor deficits in individuals with HFA than those with AS (Behere, Shahani, Noggle, & Dean, 2012;Ghaziuddin & Butler, 1998;Green et al, 2009;Papadopoulos et al, 2012;Rinehart, Bellgrove, et al, 2006), others find the opposite picture (Iwanaga, Kawasaki, & Tsuchida, 2000), some find deficits of different types in both groups (Rinehart et al, 2001), and some find no statistical difference between groups (Jansiewicz et al, 2006;Noterdaeme, Mildenberger, Minow, & Amorosa, 2002). Some of these studies have very small samples (Behere et al, 2012;Ghaziuddin & Butler, 1998;Iwanaga et al, 2000;Rinehart, Bellgrove, et al, 2006;Rinehart et al, 2001), casting doubt on their findings. Furthermore, some studies also add in a third comparison with individuals with Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS: a form of 'atypical autism' that was ever nebulous), adding more uncertain, inconsistent results to the pool (Ghaziuddin & Butler, 1998).…”

“…Experimental paradigms designed to test this typically measure and discriminate between planning time (for example, the time taken between seeing a visual cue and initiating a movement) and execution time (the time between initiating a movement and terminating it) (Dowd, McGinley, Taffe, & Rinehart, 2012;Nazarali, Glazebrook, & Elliott, 2009;Rinehart, Bellgrove, et al, 2006;Rinehart et al, 2001;Stoit, Schie, Slaats-Willemse, & Buitelaar, 2013). Other tasks have also added an element of reprogramming, where participants must divert from an expected movement (Rinehart et al, 2001), or added levels of complexity (such as inhibition) to try tease apart motor and executive planning (Rinehart, Bellgrove, et al, 2006). Some paradigms have required participants to grip an object wherein selecting the easiest initial movement may lead to an uncomfortable end-point (van Swieten et al, 2010).…”