The reach–to–grasp movement in children with autism spectrum disorder

Abstract

Autism is associated with a wide and complex array of neurobehavioural symptoms. Examination of the motor system offers a particularly appealing method for studying autism by providing information about this syndrome that is relatively immune to experimental influence. In this article, we considered the relationship between possible movement disturbance and symptoms of autism and introduced an experimental model that may be useful for rehabilitation and diagnostic purposes: the reach-to-grasp movement. Research is reviewed that characterizes kinematically the reach-to-grasp movement in children with autism compared with age-matched 'controls'. Unlike the age-matched children, autistic children showed differences in movement planning and execution, supporting the view that movement disturbances may play a part in the phenomenon of autism.

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

“…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).…”

“…Other studies show difficulties reprogramming planned movements (Nazarali et al, 2009;Rinehart et al, 2001). Some reveal only execution deficits (Stoit et al, 2013), which these authors linked to impairments in the internal feedforward models guiding movement; some reveal weaknesses in planning and execution (Mari et al, 2003;Nazarali et al, 2009). The interesting lack of effect caused by a visual distractor, in ASC, was suggested by the authors to reflect that people with ASC do not generate alternative or multiple motor plans for potential actions (Dowd et al, 2012).…”

The Rubber Hand Illusion Reveals Proprioceptive and Sensorimotor Differences in Autism Spectrum Disorders

“…There is however evidence for more subtle kinds of influence in grip aperture and peak velocity for RHI (Kammers et al, 2010;Zopf et al, 2011), as well as influences from passive versus active illusion induction (Kammers et al, 2009). Given evidence for differences for motor planning and reprogramming in ASD (Rinehart et al, 2001;Mari et al, 2003;Nazarali et al, 2009;Rinehart et al, 2006), as well as the mentioned overreliance on proprioception (Haswell et al, 2009), a reach trial was included. After indicating proprioceptive drift, a cylindrical object was placed between and approximately 20 cm in front of the real hand and the rubber hand (or cardboard box); see …”

“…For example, differences in body ownership and body image processing could potentially relate to differences in imitation, which require on-line mapping of the body images of self and other . In so far as the RHI affects the body schema, thought to be implicated in motor planning and control, it could THE RUBBER HAND ILLUSION IN AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS 4 also help throw light on observed differences in sensorimotor processes in ASD (Rinehart et al, 2001;Mari et al, 2003;Nazarali et al, 2009;Rinehart et al, 2006).…”

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

“…Griffith's gross motor sub-scale, Bruininks-Osertsky test of fine and gross motor skills, Test of Motor Impairment-Henderson Revision, the Movement Assessment Battery for Children and the Pegboard test of motor coordination) (Ghaziuddin & Butler, 1998;Ghaziuddin et al, 1994;Gillberg, 1989;Manjiviona & Prior, 1995;Miyahara et al, 1997;Szatmari, Tuff, Finlayson, & Bartolucci, 1990), finger-tapping tasks (Muller, Pierce, Ambrose, Allen, & Courchesne, 2001;Rinehart et al, 2001a), and more recently, analysis of movement kinematics during reach-and -grasp experimental tasks (Mari et al, 2003; also see Hughes, 1996).…”