Abstract
This study examined sensory profile scores of 17 individuals with autism spectrum disorder and 15 neurotypical individuals’ sensory profile scores compared to temporal binding window and functional magnetic resonance imaging data to determine a relationship. There were significant differences between groups that could guide treatments for autism. This benefits OTs to assist individuals to overcome the neuronal deficits impacting sensory and behavioral responsiveness.
Primary Author and Speaker: Kelsey Long
Additional Authors and Speakers: Amy Kurowski-Burt
Contributing Authors: Paula Webster, James Lewis
Individuals with autism spectrum disorder(ASD) share a preference for controlled and predictable sensations and anything otherwise is usually perceived by them as unpleasant1. Individuals with autism also typically get overwhelmed by a multitude of sensory stimuli. Not being able to process environmental stimuli due to an overreaction or underreaction can translate into social and communication problems which greatly impacts functional participation in daily life activities causing increased anxiety, social isolation, and negatively impacting their ability to attend to activities. Neurologically, individuals with autism bind auditory and visual information together over a wider timeframe, as compared to their age and gender matched neurotypical(NT) counterparts3. Individuals with autism may utilize different brain regions to process certain types of information2. The purpose of this study was to examine sensory profile(SP) data, temporal binding windows(TBW), and functional magnetic resonance imaging(fMRI) data to determine relationships with functional behaviors to guide and maximize occupational treatments. This was an experimental design involving 17 ASD and 15 NT participants. ASD individuals were classified by the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale™, 2nd Edition (ADOS™-2) scores. Participants were recruited and incentivized with an internal institutional grant. Inclusion criteria were adolescent to young adult age range and able to undergo all neurological testing. ADOS™-2 testing was completed by a licensed individual. The self-report Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile® was analyzed by a licensed occupational therapist. The TBW used a flash beep paradigm to find a threshold. The fMRI involved a multi-sensory video of a man bouncing a basketball with sound of the ball hitting the ground. Participants were asked to respond by striking a trigger when they believed the ball was hitting the ground. fMRI, SP, and TBW data have been analyzed using ANOVAs for comparison of performance in fMRI and the TBW with SP groups. Regression analyses were completed to identify relationships between TBW, fMRI data and their predictive value for the ADOS™-2 results and SP report. The cingulate gyrus, cerebellum, lentiform/putamen/claustrum, and insula produced significantly higher activation via fMRI in NT individuals. The pre-central gyrus, post-central gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus, and mid-occipital area produced significantly higher activation in the ASD group. All areas also produced significantly different activation levels when SP scores were analyzed in combination with ASD vs. NT in both visual and auditory fields. Activation of the cingulate gyrus and cerebellum showed different trends between sensory quadrants. The TBW of ASD individuals (571.52ms) was significantly higher than that of NT individuals (291.06ms). By using fMRI, TBW, and SP data one can create a comprehensive brain profile for individuals to guide occupational therapy treatments. Using trends between the data allows for less collection of data without lack of information. Compiling brain activation and TBW in comparison to the SP allows for treatments and interventions to become more individualized and client centered. OTs can better provide appropriate modifications, recommendations, and retraining exercises to overcome the neuronal deficits impacting sensory and behavioral responsiveness. Sensory processing has been shown to be consistent across environments, so it is reasonable to suggest that sensory processing affects the everyday lives of those who have sensory processing issues. Sensory processing issues have also been predictive of behavioral disorders which affect communication, motor functions, and social interactions4.
1. Ashburner, J., Bennett, L., Rodger, S., & Ziviani, J. (2013). Understanding the sensory experiences of young people with autism spectrum disorder: A preliminary investigation. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 60(3), 171-180. doi:10.1111/14401630.12025
2. Belmonte, M. K., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. A. (2003). Functional anatomy of impaired selective attention and compensatory processing in autism. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3), 651–664. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00189-7
3. Foss-Feig J. H., Kwakye, L. D., Cascio, C. J., Burnette, C. P., Kadivar, H., Stone, W. L., & Wallace, M. T. (2010). An extended multisensory temporal binding window in autism spectrum disorders. Experimental Brain Research, 203(2):381-389. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2240-4
4. Gonthier, C., Longuépée, L., & Bouvard, M. (2016). Sensory processing in low-functioning adults with autism spectrum disorder: Distinct sensory profiles and their relationships with behavioral dysfunction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(9), 3078-3089. doi:10.1007/s10803-016-2850-1