Tyler Ostholthoff - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Tyler Ostholthoff

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2012

diagnoses and ages of participants, varying terminology (''sensitivity,'' ''responsivity,'' ''mod... more diagnoses and ages of participants, varying terminology (''sensitivity,'' ''responsivity,'' ''modulation,'' ''sensory symptoms''), and the question of which sensory stimuli at what level of intensity to present to elicit valid responses. These issues create an often complex and confusing picture when one attempts to determine if persons with autism respond differently than their typical peers in terms of sensory sensitivity. A full review of this area is beyond the scope of the present study, however a number of researchers have summarized much of the available literature. The information reported varies tremendously in the areas noted above, but authors often suggest similar conclusions. For example, in a meta-analysis of 48 empirical and 27 theoretical papers published since 1960, Rogers and Ozonoff (2005) reported that research employing the use of parent questionnaires indicated that children with autism demonstrated more sensory symptoms relative to typical controls. Note, however, that the questionnaires employed differences from the norm on a variety of sensory concepts (e.g., quadrants) rather than simply identifying hyper-or hyposensitivity. Research employing physiology-based outcome measures (electrodermal responses, heart rate, etc.) varied only slightly depending on whether the comparison group represented typically developing or clinical controls. When typically developing peers were the comparison group, research results were mixed. However, most investigations suggest hyporesponsiveness to auditory processing in individuals with autism. When clinical controls were the comparison group, hypo-responsiveness in autism was again the predominant pattern, but across all sensory domains. As a result, the authors concluded that there was little overall support for the presence of hyper-arousal to sensory stimuli in individuals with autism. These inconsistent findings are likely attributable to an array of methodological challenges, including comparison of different sensory modalities within studies, varying survey-based and physiology-based measures, and changing scientific standards over time. Further, ages of participants in the studies reviewed were generally in the 4-13-year-old range, and sensory presentations were often limited to a single sensory modality, constraining opportunities to elicit responses. Another meta-analysis (Ben-Sasson et al., 2009) focused primarily on parent questionnaires instead of physiological outcome measures. This research highlights the significant variability of questionnaire-based methods, which made comparing one measure to another challenging. Due to the complexity of multiple questionnaires employed across the 14 studies examined, ''a team of researchers with expertise in sensory processing'' (p. 4) selected certain sensory scores within each measure. Selected scores were aggregated to form total, over-and under-responsivity, and sensory seeking composite scores. Results of this review of the available literature indicated that sensory ''modulation'' symptoms were noted to be common in persons with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), with the greatest difference being that children with ASD were under-responsive relative to typically developing children. However, ages of participants varied widely from less than three years of age to over nine years of age. This study noted that chronological age may be an important moderator, and that sensory differences were highest for children ages six to nine years. Rogers, Hepburn, and Wehner (2003) reviewed a number of studies and found that some of the literature suggested widespread, elevated rates of sensory sensitivity in children with autism compared to typically developing children. However, other studies found only a minority of young children with autism demonstrating increased sensitivity. The authors suggested that differences found between studies were difficult to interpret due to factors such as variable instruments used and inconsistent age-matching with typical peers. They echoed the presence of additional methodological problems in this area, including the absence of verified diagnoses, extreme ranges of IQ levels, and the lack of demonstrated external validity of the instruments employed. In their research project that followed this review of literature, Rogers and her colleagues found that both two-year-olds with autism and those with fragile X syndrome demonstrated more sensory ''symptoms'' compared to typically developing children. Sensory abilities were measured using the Short Sensory Profile (SSP) (McIntosh, Miller, Shyu, & Dunn, 1999), which was the predominant measure used in the meta-analysis by Ben-Sasson and her colleagues. Note that a major limitation is that the SSP does not clearly indicate ''over-sensitive'' versus ''undersensitive'' by sensory domain; rather it generates a variety of less clearly interpretable subgroup scores. Baranek, David, Poe, Stone, and Watson, (2006) used a different parent questionnaire, the Sensory Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), to evaluate sensory responsiveness of young children ages 5-80 months. They found sensory ''symptoms'' in 69% of a group diagnosed with autism, and symptoms were inversely correlated with mental age. The group with autism had higher levels of sensory symptoms as compared to either a developmentally delayed or typically developing group, with preschool children showing distinct levels of hypo-responsiveness. However, both hypo-and hyperresponsiveness were found in the larger sample, sometimes simultaneously. The authors repeated the previously mentioned concern regarding the psychometric properties of instruments used to measure sensory sensitivity, citing a lack of ''sensitive, reliable, and valid tools'' (p. 592). In their review of the literature, Baranek, Parham, and Bodfish (2005) found sensory sensitivities to be apparent in 42-88% of school-aged children with autism, the most common being auditory sensitivity. Prevalence of sensory sensitivity patterns overall were noted to be variable, with anecdotal reports citing hyper-responsive patterns in 19% of children with autism, hypo-responsive patterns in 39%, and mixed patterns in 36%. These researchers suggest that while sensory sensitivity may be present in the developmentally delayed population as a whole, hypo-responsiveness seems to be most characteristic of autism. This conclusion is congruent with those of other authors, and as a group implies that while there is much variability, hypo-responsiveness is usually suggested to be the most common type of sensory sensitivity in persons with autism. However, these researchers noted again that questionnaires lacked psychometric data and that parent-as-informant questionnaires could produce confounded data. Specifically, parent responses may be influenced by the knowledge of symptoms typically associated with autism, or parents may avoid endorsing unusual behaviors prior to their child's diagnosis (Stone & Hogan, 1993).

diagnoses and ages of participants, varying terminology (''sensitivity,'' ''responsivity,'' ''mod... more diagnoses and ages of participants, varying terminology (''sensitivity,'' ''responsivity,'' ''modulation,'' ''sensory symptoms''), and the question of which sensory stimuli at what level of intensity to present to elicit valid responses. These issues create an often complex and confusing picture when one attempts to determine if persons with autism respond differently than their typical peers in terms of sensory sensitivity. A full review of this area is beyond the scope of the present study, however a number of researchers have summarized much of the available literature. The information reported varies tremendously in the areas noted above, but authors often suggest similar conclusions. For example, in a meta-analysis of 48 empirical and 27 theoretical papers published since 1960, Rogers and Ozonoff (2005) reported that research employing the use of parent questionnaires indicated that children with autism demonstrated more sensory symptoms relative to typical controls. Note, however, that the questionnaires employed differences from the norm on a variety of sensory concepts (e.g., quadrants) rather than simply identifying hyper-or hyposensitivity. Research employing physiology-based outcome measures (electrodermal responses, heart rate, etc.) varied only slightly depending on whether the comparison group represented typically developing or clinical controls. When typically developing peers were the comparison group, research results were mixed. However, most investigations suggest hyporesponsiveness to auditory processing in individuals with autism. When clinical controls were the comparison group, hypo-responsiveness in autism was again the predominant pattern, but across all sensory domains. As a result, the authors concluded that there was little overall support for the presence of hyper-arousal to sensory stimuli in individuals with autism. These inconsistent findings are likely attributable to an array of methodological challenges, including comparison of different sensory modalities within studies, varying survey-based and physiology-based measures, and changing scientific standards over time. Further, ages of participants in the studies reviewed were generally in the 4-13-year-old range, and sensory presentations were often limited to a single sensory modality, constraining opportunities to elicit responses. Another meta-analysis (Ben-Sasson et al., 2009) focused primarily on parent questionnaires instead of physiological outcome measures. This research highlights the significant variability of questionnaire-based methods, which made comparing one measure to another challenging. Due to the complexity of multiple questionnaires employed across the 14 studies examined, ''a team of researchers with expertise in sensory processing'' (p. 4) selected certain sensory scores within each measure. Selected scores were aggregated to form total, over-and under-responsivity, and sensory seeking composite scores. Results of this review of the available literature indicated that sensory ''modulation'' symptoms were noted to be common in persons with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), with the greatest difference being that children with ASD were under-responsive relative to typically developing children. However, ages of participants varied widely from less than three years of age to over nine years of age. This study noted that chronological age may be an important moderator, and that sensory differences were highest for children ages six to nine years. Rogers, Hepburn, and Wehner (2003) reviewed a number of studies and found that some of the literature suggested widespread, elevated rates of sensory sensitivity in children with autism compared to typically developing children. However, other studies found only a minority of young children with autism demonstrating increased sensitivity. The authors suggested that differences found between studies were difficult to interpret due to factors such as variable instruments used and inconsistent age-matching with typical peers. They echoed the presence of additional methodological problems in this area, including the absence of verified diagnoses, extreme ranges of IQ levels, and the lack of demonstrated external validity of the instruments employed. In their research project that followed this review of literature, Rogers and her colleagues found that both two-year-olds with autism and those with fragile X syndrome demonstrated more sensory ''symptoms'' compared to typically developing children. Sensory abilities were measured using the Short Sensory Profile (SSP) (McIntosh, Miller, Shyu, & Dunn, 1999), which was the predominant measure used in the meta-analysis by Ben-Sasson and her colleagues. Note that a major limitation is that the SSP does not clearly indicate ''over-sensitive'' versus ''undersensitive'' by sensory domain; rather it generates a variety of less clearly interpretable subgroup scores. Baranek, David, Poe, Stone, and Watson, (2006) used a different parent questionnaire, the Sensory Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), to evaluate sensory responsiveness of young children ages 5-80 months. They found sensory ''symptoms'' in 69% of a group diagnosed with autism, and symptoms were inversely correlated with mental age. The group with autism had higher levels of sensory symptoms as compared to either a developmentally delayed or typically developing group, with preschool children showing distinct levels of hypo-responsiveness. However, both hypo-and hyperresponsiveness were found in the larger sample, sometimes simultaneously. The authors repeated the previously mentioned concern regarding the psychometric properties of instruments used to measure sensory sensitivity, citing a lack of ''sensitive, reliable, and valid tools'' (p. 592). In their review of the literature, Baranek, Parham, and Bodfish (2005) found sensory sensitivities to be apparent in 42-88% of school-aged children with autism, the most common being auditory sensitivity. Prevalence of sensory sensitivity patterns overall were noted to be variable, with anecdotal reports citing hyper-responsive patterns in 19% of children with autism, hypo-responsive patterns in 39%, and mixed patterns in 36%. These researchers suggest that while sensory sensitivity may be present in the developmentally delayed population as a whole, hypo-responsiveness seems to be most characteristic of autism. This conclusion is congruent with those of other authors, and as a group implies that while there is much variability, hypo-responsiveness is usually suggested to be the most common type of sensory sensitivity in persons with autism. However, these researchers noted again that questionnaires lacked psychometric data and that parent-as-informant questionnaires could produce confounded data. Specifically, parent responses may be influenced by the knowledge of symptoms typically associated with autism, or parents may avoid endorsing unusual behaviors prior to their child's diagnosis (Stone & Hogan, 1993).

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2012

diagnoses and ages of participants, varying terminology (''sensitivity,'' ''responsivity,'' ''mod... more diagnoses and ages of participants, varying terminology (''sensitivity,'' ''responsivity,'' ''modulation,'' ''sensory symptoms''), and the question of which sensory stimuli at what level of intensity to present to elicit valid responses. These issues create an often complex and confusing picture when one attempts to determine if persons with autism respond differently than their typical peers in terms of sensory sensitivity. A full review of this area is beyond the scope of the present study, however a number of researchers have summarized much of the available literature. The information reported varies tremendously in the areas noted above, but authors often suggest similar conclusions. For example, in a meta-analysis of 48 empirical and 27 theoretical papers published since 1960, Rogers and Ozonoff (2005) reported that research employing the use of parent questionnaires indicated that children with autism demonstrated more sensory symptoms relative to typical controls. Note, however, that the questionnaires employed differences from the norm on a variety of sensory concepts (e.g., quadrants) rather than simply identifying hyper-or hyposensitivity. Research employing physiology-based outcome measures (electrodermal responses, heart rate, etc.) varied only slightly depending on whether the comparison group represented typically developing or clinical controls. When typically developing peers were the comparison group, research results were mixed. However, most investigations suggest hyporesponsiveness to auditory processing in individuals with autism. When clinical controls were the comparison group, hypo-responsiveness in autism was again the predominant pattern, but across all sensory domains. As a result, the authors concluded that there was little overall support for the presence of hyper-arousal to sensory stimuli in individuals with autism. These inconsistent findings are likely attributable to an array of methodological challenges, including comparison of different sensory modalities within studies, varying survey-based and physiology-based measures, and changing scientific standards over time. Further, ages of participants in the studies reviewed were generally in the 4-13-year-old range, and sensory presentations were often limited to a single sensory modality, constraining opportunities to elicit responses. Another meta-analysis (Ben-Sasson et al., 2009) focused primarily on parent questionnaires instead of physiological outcome measures. This research highlights the significant variability of questionnaire-based methods, which made comparing one measure to another challenging. Due to the complexity of multiple questionnaires employed across the 14 studies examined, ''a team of researchers with expertise in sensory processing'' (p. 4) selected certain sensory scores within each measure. Selected scores were aggregated to form total, over-and under-responsivity, and sensory seeking composite scores. Results of this review of the available literature indicated that sensory ''modulation'' symptoms were noted to be common in persons with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), with the greatest difference being that children with ASD were under-responsive relative to typically developing children. However, ages of participants varied widely from less than three years of age to over nine years of age. This study noted that chronological age may be an important moderator, and that sensory differences were highest for children ages six to nine years. Rogers, Hepburn, and Wehner (2003) reviewed a number of studies and found that some of the literature suggested widespread, elevated rates of sensory sensitivity in children with autism compared to typically developing children. However, other studies found only a minority of young children with autism demonstrating increased sensitivity. The authors suggested that differences found between studies were difficult to interpret due to factors such as variable instruments used and inconsistent age-matching with typical peers. They echoed the presence of additional methodological problems in this area, including the absence of verified diagnoses, extreme ranges of IQ levels, and the lack of demonstrated external validity of the instruments employed. In their research project that followed this review of literature, Rogers and her colleagues found that both two-year-olds with autism and those with fragile X syndrome demonstrated more sensory ''symptoms'' compared to typically developing children. Sensory abilities were measured using the Short Sensory Profile (SSP) (McIntosh, Miller, Shyu, & Dunn, 1999), which was the predominant measure used in the meta-analysis by Ben-Sasson and her colleagues. Note that a major limitation is that the SSP does not clearly indicate ''over-sensitive'' versus ''undersensitive'' by sensory domain; rather it generates a variety of less clearly interpretable subgroup scores. Baranek, David, Poe, Stone, and Watson, (2006) used a different parent questionnaire, the Sensory Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), to evaluate sensory responsiveness of young children ages 5-80 months. They found sensory ''symptoms'' in 69% of a group diagnosed with autism, and symptoms were inversely correlated with mental age. The group with autism had higher levels of sensory symptoms as compared to either a developmentally delayed or typically developing group, with preschool children showing distinct levels of hypo-responsiveness. However, both hypo-and hyperresponsiveness were found in the larger sample, sometimes simultaneously. The authors repeated the previously mentioned concern regarding the psychometric properties of instruments used to measure sensory sensitivity, citing a lack of ''sensitive, reliable, and valid tools'' (p. 592). In their review of the literature, Baranek, Parham, and Bodfish (2005) found sensory sensitivities to be apparent in 42-88% of school-aged children with autism, the most common being auditory sensitivity. Prevalence of sensory sensitivity patterns overall were noted to be variable, with anecdotal reports citing hyper-responsive patterns in 19% of children with autism, hypo-responsive patterns in 39%, and mixed patterns in 36%. These researchers suggest that while sensory sensitivity may be present in the developmentally delayed population as a whole, hypo-responsiveness seems to be most characteristic of autism. This conclusion is congruent with those of other authors, and as a group implies that while there is much variability, hypo-responsiveness is usually suggested to be the most common type of sensory sensitivity in persons with autism. However, these researchers noted again that questionnaires lacked psychometric data and that parent-as-informant questionnaires could produce confounded data. Specifically, parent responses may be influenced by the knowledge of symptoms typically associated with autism, or parents may avoid endorsing unusual behaviors prior to their child's diagnosis (Stone & Hogan, 1993).

diagnoses and ages of participants, varying terminology (''sensitivity,'' ''responsivity,'' ''mod... more diagnoses and ages of participants, varying terminology (''sensitivity,'' ''responsivity,'' ''modulation,'' ''sensory symptoms''), and the question of which sensory stimuli at what level of intensity to present to elicit valid responses. These issues create an often complex and confusing picture when one attempts to determine if persons with autism respond differently than their typical peers in terms of sensory sensitivity. A full review of this area is beyond the scope of the present study, however a number of researchers have summarized much of the available literature. The information reported varies tremendously in the areas noted above, but authors often suggest similar conclusions. For example, in a meta-analysis of 48 empirical and 27 theoretical papers published since 1960, Rogers and Ozonoff (2005) reported that research employing the use of parent questionnaires indicated that children with autism demonstrated more sensory symptoms relative to typical controls. Note, however, that the questionnaires employed differences from the norm on a variety of sensory concepts (e.g., quadrants) rather than simply identifying hyper-or hyposensitivity. Research employing physiology-based outcome measures (electrodermal responses, heart rate, etc.) varied only slightly depending on whether the comparison group represented typically developing or clinical controls. When typically developing peers were the comparison group, research results were mixed. However, most investigations suggest hyporesponsiveness to auditory processing in individuals with autism. When clinical controls were the comparison group, hypo-responsiveness in autism was again the predominant pattern, but across all sensory domains. As a result, the authors concluded that there was little overall support for the presence of hyper-arousal to sensory stimuli in individuals with autism. These inconsistent findings are likely attributable to an array of methodological challenges, including comparison of different sensory modalities within studies, varying survey-based and physiology-based measures, and changing scientific standards over time. Further, ages of participants in the studies reviewed were generally in the 4-13-year-old range, and sensory presentations were often limited to a single sensory modality, constraining opportunities to elicit responses. Another meta-analysis (Ben-Sasson et al., 2009) focused primarily on parent questionnaires instead of physiological outcome measures. This research highlights the significant variability of questionnaire-based methods, which made comparing one measure to another challenging. Due to the complexity of multiple questionnaires employed across the 14 studies examined, ''a team of researchers with expertise in sensory processing'' (p. 4) selected certain sensory scores within each measure. Selected scores were aggregated to form total, over-and under-responsivity, and sensory seeking composite scores. Results of this review of the available literature indicated that sensory ''modulation'' symptoms were noted to be common in persons with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), with the greatest difference being that children with ASD were under-responsive relative to typically developing children. However, ages of participants varied widely from less than three years of age to over nine years of age. This study noted that chronological age may be an important moderator, and that sensory differences were highest for children ages six to nine years. Rogers, Hepburn, and Wehner (2003) reviewed a number of studies and found that some of the literature suggested widespread, elevated rates of sensory sensitivity in children with autism compared to typically developing children. However, other studies found only a minority of young children with autism demonstrating increased sensitivity. The authors suggested that differences found between studies were difficult to interpret due to factors such as variable instruments used and inconsistent age-matching with typical peers. They echoed the presence of additional methodological problems in this area, including the absence of verified diagnoses, extreme ranges of IQ levels, and the lack of demonstrated external validity of the instruments employed. In their research project that followed this review of literature, Rogers and her colleagues found that both two-year-olds with autism and those with fragile X syndrome demonstrated more sensory ''symptoms'' compared to typically developing children. Sensory abilities were measured using the Short Sensory Profile (SSP) (McIntosh, Miller, Shyu, & Dunn, 1999), which was the predominant measure used in the meta-analysis by Ben-Sasson and her colleagues. Note that a major limitation is that the SSP does not clearly indicate ''over-sensitive'' versus ''undersensitive'' by sensory domain; rather it generates a variety of less clearly interpretable subgroup scores. Baranek, David, Poe, Stone, and Watson, (2006) used a different parent questionnaire, the Sensory Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), to evaluate sensory responsiveness of young children ages 5-80 months. They found sensory ''symptoms'' in 69% of a group diagnosed with autism, and symptoms were inversely correlated with mental age. The group with autism had higher levels of sensory symptoms as compared to either a developmentally delayed or typically developing group, with preschool children showing distinct levels of hypo-responsiveness. However, both hypo-and hyperresponsiveness were found in the larger sample, sometimes simultaneously. The authors repeated the previously mentioned concern regarding the psychometric properties of instruments used to measure sensory sensitivity, citing a lack of ''sensitive, reliable, and valid tools'' (p. 592). In their review of the literature, Baranek, Parham, and Bodfish (2005) found sensory sensitivities to be apparent in 42-88% of school-aged children with autism, the most common being auditory sensitivity. Prevalence of sensory sensitivity patterns overall were noted to be variable, with anecdotal reports citing hyper-responsive patterns in 19% of children with autism, hypo-responsive patterns in 39%, and mixed patterns in 36%. These researchers suggest that while sensory sensitivity may be present in the developmentally delayed population as a whole, hypo-responsiveness seems to be most characteristic of autism. This conclusion is congruent with those of other authors, and as a group implies that while there is much variability, hypo-responsiveness is usually suggested to be the most common type of sensory sensitivity in persons with autism. However, these researchers noted again that questionnaires lacked psychometric data and that parent-as-informant questionnaires could produce confounded data. Specifically, parent responses may be influenced by the knowledge of symptoms typically associated with autism, or parents may avoid endorsing unusual behaviors prior to their child's diagnosis (Stone & Hogan, 1993).