This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]

On: 28 November 2014, At: 08:07

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

International Journal of
Disability, Development and
Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20

Unusual Sensory Sensitivities in

Autism: A possible crossroads
a a
Ayshe Talay-Ongan & Kara Wood
a
Institute for Early Childhood , Macquarie University ,
Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia
Published online: 21 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Ayshe Talay-Ongan & Kara Wood (2000) Unusual Sensory Sensitivities
in Autism: A possible crossroads, International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 47:2, 201-212, DOI: 10.1080/713671112

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713671112

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
 forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014
 International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2000

Unusual Sensory Sensitivities in Autism: a

possible crossroads
AYSHE TALAY-ONGAN & KARA WOOD
Institute for Early Childhood, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW 2109, Australia
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014

ABSTRACT Although there is ample clinical evidence supporting sensory hyper- and
hypo-sensitivities in children with autism, empirical evidence is scant. Review of the
available evidence indicated that there was a need for further systematic data on unusual
sensory-perceptual sensitivities. A questionnaire was developed to investigate this phenom-
enon in 30 young children with autism and their controls across auditory, tactile, visual,
gustatory, and vestibular domains. SigniŽ cant differences were found between the two
groups across all domains, although the limitations of this preliminary investigation need to
be taken into account. The Ž ndings are interpreted within the framework of theory of mind
and joint attention deŽ cit, as well as psychodynamic hypotheses for autism. A brief
argument is given as to how an ongoing experience of sensory aberrations may have an
inhibitory effect on the prerequisite processes through which social interactivity, attachment,
and communication skills develop. The applied implications of the Ž ndings are also
discussed.

Introduction
This report has three aims: (a) highlighting a signiŽ cant but somewhat neglected
area of aberrant responses to various sensory stimuli in autism, (b) providing further
empirical evidence through the results obtained by the administration of a prelimi-
nary assessment tool based on parents’ reports of sensory sensitivities in their
children diagnosed to have autism, and (c) attempting to interpret possible associa-
tions between the presence of unusual sensory sensitivities and some frameworks of
causal explanations of the disorder, as well as between areas of impairment in
autism.
A signiŽ cant feature of autism appears to be unusual responses to sensory stimuli
(Firth, 1989). Indeed, the diagnosis of the disorder by many clinicians includes
behavioural descriptives of abnormal sensory sensitivities. Criteria established by
Ornitz (1973) expressed behaviours symptomatic of perceptual disturbances; later
work describing early development of children with autism by Ornitz, Guthrie, and
Farley (1977) included faulty modulation of sensory input, including heightened
awareness, heightened sensitivity and nonresponsiveness in auditory, visual, tactile
and vestibular domains, as one of the four central areas of disturbances: nearly 40%
of the children whose behaviour was moderately suggestive of autistic disturbances

ISSN 1034-912X (print)/ISSN 1465-346X (online)/00/020201-12 Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
 202 K. Wood & A. Talay-Ongan

and nearly 30% of children whose behaviour was strongly suggestive of autism were
found to exhibit perceptual disturbances.
Autobiographical accounts from individuals with autism (Grandin, 1992; Stelhi,
1991; Williams, 1994) lend further support to the evidence of unusual sensory
sensitivities and distorted sensory input. Such anecdotal evidence, however, is
viewed critically by O’Neill and Jones (1997) who contend that the reliability of
these Ž rsthand accounts may be dubious due to “real” versus “echoed” memories;
furthermore, these accounts are not fully representative of the entire spectrum of
autism, since the individuals who report such experiences were in the higher
functioning group.
Under or oversensitivity to sensory stimuli was not included as one of the
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014

diagnostic criteria for autism in the DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association,

1980), but was included for childhood onset pervasive developmental disorder.
Volkmar, Cohen, and Paul’s (1986) evaluation of the DSM-III criteria for children
with autism, however, indicated that parents were most likely to report that the child
commonly ignored sounds other children would notice (81%), that the child was
disturbed by noises (51%), and preoccupied by textures (56%). Current DSM-IV
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994) also does not include perceptual distur-
bances as a diagnostic feature of the autistic disorder. On the other hand, a
frequently used clinical assessment tool, the Autism Behaviour Checklist (ABC)
(Krug, Arick, & Almond, 1980) includes items re ecting sensory sensitivities.
Ornitz (1985) claimed that the preponderance of academic interest and research
into autism focused on two of its three functional disturbance clusters; namely,
object and person relations, and language and communication. The third cluster,
that of sensory modulation and motility, continues to be less well represented,
possibly because of the paucity of empirical research establishing a clear relationship
between the reported hypo- and hyper-sensitivities, and autistic symptomatology. Of
these, abnormal responses to auditory stimuli have generated the most comment
and research (see e.g., Bettison, 1994; Gillberg, Johansson, Steffenburg, & Berlin,
1997; Rimland, 1990), perhaps because there are clinical and anecdotal reports of
successful intervention strategies based on the modiŽ cation of this type of sensitivity
(Rimland, 1991; Stelhi, 1991). Bettison (1994) found that 65% of parents of
children with autism reported mild to severe distress reactions in their child to
various auditory stimuli, with a range of sensitivity noted. In her subsequent
intervention study examining sound sensitivity in children with autism, Bettison
(1996) reported a signiŽ cant reduction following a treatment program based on an
audiometric modiŽ cation. However, Gillberg et al. (1997) reported that auditory
integration training in children with autism did not produce a signiŽ cant change in
the overall autistic symptoms 9 months after the treatment. Not all sensory domains
are covered in these reports, and to date, the scientiŽ c rigour of most investigations
has been insufŽ cient.
Interestingly, there seems to be an increased interest in the sensory modulation
dysfunction in autism within neurologically-based research into the disorder. Tribe
(1992) identiŽ ed 19 clinical studies which relate neuroanatomical deŽ cits to abnor-
mal sensory processing in subjects with autism. On the basis of this review Tribe
 Sensory Sensitivities in Autism 203

claimed that “there is enough evidence to suggest that sensory processing impair-
ment is as central to autism as the impairments of social interaction, communication
and imagination” (p. 141). Nevertheless, most theories of autism, including theory
of mind and earlier psychodynamic approaches, have not taken unusual sensory
sensitivities into account explicitly as having a possible pivotal contribution to
autistic symptomatology.
This brief review highlights the prevalence and possible signiŽ cance of sensory
modulation impairments in autism. The purpose of the investigation reported below
was to pilot a preliminary tool which could contribute to the development of a
formal assessment procedure that would indicate the nature and extent of sensory
hyper- and hypo-sensitivities across all modalities in children with autism in com-
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014

parison with their normal peers.

Method
Participants
Thirty children with autism aged 4 to 14 years (27 males) and 30 normally
developing peers, matched in age and gender, but not in intelligence, were included
in this study. For children with autism, diagnosis was determined or conŽ rmed by
a professional team at the Autistic Society of New South Wales, Australia. All
children with autism were receiving home- or centre-based intervention. Participants
were randomly selected from the Sydney metropolitan area; socio-economic status
was not controlled.

Data Collection and Design

Participating children’s parents were asked to complete the Sensory Sensitivity
Questionnaire–Revised (SSQ-R) developed for this investigation. Returned ques-
tionnaires were coded and analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The design
consisted of comparisons of the autistic and non-autistic groups across the six
continuous dependent variables of the different sensory modalities covered in the
SSQ-R. The categorical independent variable consisted of group assignment. The
data analysis entailed a separate one-way ANOVA for each sensory modality.

Instrumentation
Initially, the SSQ was developed by modiŽ cation of assessment tools devised by
Bettison (1992, 1994), Edelson (1992), and Ayers (1979) and contained 37 un-
equally distributed items for auditory, tactile, visual, gustatory, vestibular, and
olfactory domains. It was then piloted on nine children with autism and their
matching controls, and subsequently revised for the second-stage investigation. The
revised Sensory Sensitivity Questionnaire (SSQ-R) probed sensory sensitivities
across all domains by presenting nine closed (yes/no) items per modality (54 items),
The revised questions included the 22 items found to be discriminative in the pilot
 204 K. Wood & A. Talay-Ongan

study as per Cronbach Alpha test, modiŽ ed versions of items not found to be
discriminative but included because of the descriptive comments collected in the
pilot study, as well as some new items constructed following further analysis of the
original sources. Increased number of items re ected an equally weighted distri-
bution, and allowed for a closer examination of each modality, while balancing the
length of the instrument against responder fatigue. Closed items were constructed in
order to secure uniformity in quantitative measurement, to facilitate coding, and to
enable the participants to respond with ease and speed. Descriptive comments were
invited on each item for the purpose of qualitative analysis of responses.
Each item probed one aspect of behaviour related to the child’s perception and
typical response style in that modality. Items were phrased such that an afŽ rmative
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014

response indicated either a hypo- or a hyper-sensitivity; that is, “My child seems
oblivious to (often bad) odours” or “Certain sounds appear to be painful to my
child.” The responses to the items were coded as zero for no response, one for “no”
and two for “yes” and added for each domain. Items probing different modalities
were randomly distributed within the questionnaire to reduce responder bias as well
as to facilitate an independent focus on each item.

Discriminative Analysis of the SSQ-R

Of the 54 items in the questionnaire, 45 were shown to have discriminative
capability, as indicated by a Cronbach Alpha 5 .95 (Norusis, 1988). The analysis
presented below is based on these 45 items.
Content validity of the SSQ-R is assumed, since all items represent statements
concerning behaviours re ecting the existence of hyper- or hypo-sensitivities; since
there is a signiŽ cant overlap with other tools tapping similar processes, concurrent
validity too is assumed. A measure of internal reliability was attempted by inclusion
of two randomly dispersed repetitive items, thereby checking for respondents’
consistency.

Results
One-way ANOVA was used to analyse the results, and demonstrated that the group
with autism displayed a signiŽ cantly greater degree of hyper- and hypo-sensitivities
compared to the non-autistic group across all modalities. The means of the obtained
scores for the two groups is summarised in Table I.
Age-related differences were also tabulated, with an expectation that the younger
children with autism would display greater numbers of positive responses, and that
sensory processing would tend to normalise as children got older. However, the
results revealed that sensory sensitivities increased over age: while the mean positive
scores was 12 for the 4- and 5-year-olds, it was 22 for the 6- to 9-year-olds, and 24
for 10- to 14-year-olds out of 45 possible items. These scores may be a re ection of
the older children being more able to express sensory modulation disturbances.
Qualitative analysis of the comments made by parents on the SSQ-R items
 Sensory Sensitivities in Autism 205

TABLE I. One-way ANOVA results testing for the signiŽ cance between
the means for all modalities in the autistic and non-autistic groups

Autistic Non-autistic

Modality M SD M SD F(1, 16)

Auditory 3.45 1.84 1.45 .79 66.73***

Gustatory 3.40 .79 1.40 .72 105.68***
Olfactory 1.61 .96 1.19 .41 4.73*
Tactile 2.61 1.08 1.22 .44 42.87***
Vestibular 2.95 1.27 1.21 .72 41.16***
Visual 2.65 1.09 1.03 .15 64.95***
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014

* p , .05, ** p , .01, *** p , .0001

revealed the variability of response styles of the children to different sensory

perceptions, affording an opportunity for some rare insights into these phenomena.
Gustatory sensitivities held prominence in parents’ anecdotal comments as well as
producing the largest F statistic. While the parents of the control group remarked on
their children’s preferences for “junk” food and avoidance of vegetables, all parents
of the children with autism stated that their child had a very “limited diet.” Food
texture (i.e., soft, mushy, or lumpy) appeared to be one dimension of rejection,
while an unwillingness to try new foods was also complained of frequently. Other
behaviours noted were touching, smelling, and breaking of foods into small pieces.
Pica, or ingestion of non-food substances, was also noted frequently, and included
toys, metal, plastic, paper, dirt, rocks, and body parts.
In the auditory domain, hyper-acuity was found to be a predominant sensitivity in
children with autism, but not in their normal peers. The most frequently reported
incidents were hearing the sounds of planes, trains, alarms, or television before
others could hear them. Conversely, these children were reported not to appear to
hear some other sounds, particularly the human voice. While all parents reported a
hypo-acuity to parental voice requesting attention or compliance, such selective
hearing was reported for children with autism with greater prevalence, duration and
intensity in comparison with their normal peers, to the extent that some parents
thought their child to be deaf prior to diagnosis of autism. Parents also felt that their
children were hindered from hearing by faint background noises such as music,
conversations, or even the sound of the wind.
While all children were indicated to love certain sounds such as theme songs,
children with autism were reported to be intensely and almost exclusively attracted
to idiosyncratic choices. These included a particular melody played on an instru-
ment, the drone of vacuum cleaners, aeroplanes, the ticking of clocks and other
mechanical sounds. Interestingly, other children in this group were reported to
exhibit an intense dislike (and a reaction resembling one of pain) of television theme
songs, the sound of musical instruments, and noises of a variety of household
appliances.
The children who were developing normally were noted for raising their voices in
 206 K. Wood & A. Talay-Ongan

order to be heard above the din created by friends or siblings. Children with autism,
however, were reported to favour using a very soft or a very loud voice for protracted
periods regardless of the background noise. Similarly, when listening to music or
watching television, some children in this group did so with extreme modulations of
volume, either too soft or too loud, or constantly alternating between the two levels,
suggestive of  uctuating comfortable listening levels. While no self-comforting
sounds were reported to be made in the comparison group, some parents of the
children with autism reported that their children made unusual noises and sounds
indicating pleasure or self-soothing, including squawking, humming, shoe-slapping,
and howling.
The most frequent comment in the visual domain for children with autism was
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014

their inclination to visually Ž xate in space (“stares into space and laughs”). Parents
reported intensely concentrated looks on the children’s faces and said they often
wondered whether the children were looking at something they could not see like
“air particles in the window.” Furthermore, some children were reported to spend
long periods of time in concentrated examination of objects and pictures, and were
said to pay close and unusual attention to the Ž ne detail in pictures and books.
In the tactile domain, several children were reported to respond with tears and
distress to relatively innocuous experiences such as getting wet, wearing wet cloth-
ing, brushing teeth, and touching sticky substances. Tactile defensiveness was
described when persons less well known to the children touched them, which
appeared to be distressing, unless the touch was initiated and controlled by the
child. Sources of pleasurable tactile experiences included stroking long hair, ear
rings, navels, bare skin and soft surfaces, although aversive reactions were reported
for some fabrics, Ž nger paint, and cold surfaces. Where comparison children reacted
to pain caused by falls or cuts, a failure to react to painful stimuli was reported for
some children with autism. Examples cited by parents included a lack of reaction to
bee stings, burns, and not crying after a “hard” fall. With respect to temperature
sensitivity (included in the tactile domain because it is a somatic sense carried by the
same afferent systems), both groups of parents reported concern for their child’s
apparent disregard for the prevailing weather conditions. The parents of children
with autism, however, frequently indicated an oblivion to cold and heat in their
children, exhibited by the children’s unawareness of the temperature and/or an
unwillingness to modify clothing accordingly. Several parents of children with
autism reported that their youngsters were very particular about the temperature of
the bath water; some commented on their swimming in waters others found very
chilly and uncomfortable.
In the vestibular domain, several of the children with autism were reportedly
observed to be oblivious to conventional personal space, approaching relative
strangers too closely, or touching another person’s hair at will, although these may
also indicate a lack of social cognition necessary to modulate codes of social
behaviour, rather than being vestibular hyposensitivities. Some children’s excep-
tional balance skills and a lack of danger awareness (i.e., “climbs on garage roof—no
fear”) were also noted. While some children in this group were reported to com-
pletely avoid activities involving whirling or spinning, or were physically ill following
 Sensory Sensitivities in Autism 207

such activities, others not only favoured them but also showed no evidence of
dizziness.
The section on perception of olfactory responses resulted in few comments from
both groups, possibly because it is difŽ cult for parents to be sure of their children’s
responses to stimulation of this sense. Nevertheless, some children in the autistic
group were reported to be oblivious to many smells, while others either sought out
certain smells including soap, garbage or faeces, or were not repelled by foul odours.

Limitations and Conclusions

Prior to discussion of the theoretical implications related to these Ž ndings, some
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014

limitations of this preliminary investigation need to be acknowledged. The Ž rst and

most signiŽ cant possible confound is that the groups were not matched in intelli-
gence, as it is not uncommon to observe sensory processing problems and atypical
response styles to sensory stimuli in children with intellectual impairment. Many
children with autism also have an intellectual impairment; thus the prevalence of
hyper- and hypo-sensitivities in the autistic group cannot be attributable to the
disorder alone. Children with conditions other than autism (e.g., Williams syn-
drome) also reportedly display sensory sensitivities. The severity of the disorder
within the spectrum of autistic disorders (and its possible relation to the manifesta-
tion of sensory sensitivities) were not systematically studied either. Data on the
degree of expression of the signs of autism using an instrument such as Childhood
Autism Rating Scale (CARS) (Schopler, Reichler, & Renner, 1988) and a frequency/
intensity rating of the reported unusual sensory-perceptual processes would have
been highly desirable.
Given the evidence that autism is prevalent across the community and is of
organic ontogenesis (Rutter, 1968/1985), any limitations in the subject recruitment
process which overlooked socio-economic status may not have been grave; however,
the ability to comprehend and respond in English was not accounted for in this
version of SSQ-R, which was only available in English. Indeed, one returned
questionnaire was excluded from analysis due to strong evidence of insufŽ cient
comprehension of the items. Future studies or users of SSQ-R should consider
making it available in the language of dominant use in the home. Furthermore, the
respondents were not interviewed or assisted during data collection to clarify the
exact nature of the behaviour they were indicating in their child (although they were
encouraged to write their comments or exemplars of each item). Thus, the be-
haviours indicated may not have been those which the SSQ-R intended to tap.
Finally, although the anecdotal data seemed to suggest a developmental change in
sensory sensitivities, the cross-sectional design of the investigation does not make it
possible to substantiate such a conclusion. The higher scores reported for older
subjects may not have been due to an increase in sensory sensitivity with age, but
may be a re ection of a greater degree of expression of autism in the older subgroup.
A longitudinal study is needed to shed some light on the developmental processes
involved and their variability over time.
Interpreted in the light of these constraints, the Ž ndings of this study nevertheless
 208 K. Wood & A. Talay-Ongan

indicate that children with autism frequently perceive sensory information in ways
signiŽ cantly different from other children. The fact that autism is a heterogeneous
disorder is strongly suggested by the range, variability, and intensity of the reported
behaviours associated with these unusual sensitivities. The signiŽ cant difference in
sensory processing across all modalities between the normally developing and
autistic groups is the Ž rst known empirical account of this often observed clinical
phenomenon.
Although the neurological mechanisms accounting for unusual sensory sensitivi-
ties remain obscure, treatment programs based on reducing these sensitivities appear
to yield some promising results. An instrument which could provide detailed
information about a child’s sensory sensitivities would be a useful tool in developing
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014

individualised sensory modiŽ cation programs. SSQ-R remains an experimental tool

in ascertaining sensory sensitivities, and needs to be calibrated and analysed further,
however, it may contribute to the data gathering process.

Unusual Sensitivities at the Crossroads of Theoretical Perspectives on

Autism
Some theoretical implications may be derived from these Ž ndings and shed light on
our understanding of this enigmatic disorder within the following assumptions.
Firstly, it should be underlined that a disruption of one domain of development (in
this instance, the sensory-perceptual one) is likely to affect many other domains,
each being an interrelated part of the whole. Volkmar et al. (1986) clearly state that
the interrerlationships of the various symptom categories deserve further study;
indeed the linguistic, cognitive, and social-affective domains should not be investi-
gated outside the context of the entirety of the individual’s development. It is argued
here that unusual sensory sensitivities evidenced in autism are likely to have
repercussions on cognitive-linguisti c and socio-emotional outcomes. Secondly, it is
suggested that abnormal sensory experiences may add strength to, and can interface
with various theories and approaches to autism in particular, and child development
in general. Below, we present a possible scenario which shows how the theory of
mind orientation to autism, which has a joint attention deŽ cit at its core, may also
be interpreted in light of the empirical evidence of sensory modulation disturbances.
As joint attention is a necessary substrate of both attachment and language develop-
ment, these aspects of development are also likely to be affected by sensory
aberrations. Even the earlier psychodynamic approaches may, in part, be accounted
for through the existence of sensory sensitivities.
The widely accepted theory of mind framework offers a causal explanation for the
development of autistic symptomatology: Baron-Cohen (1995), for example, con-
tends that autism is the re ection of the inability to conjecture the mental states of
others, or perceive their intentions, beliefs and desires. According to his view, of the
four progressive mechanisms which culminate in a theory of mind, the Ž rst one
(Intentionality Detector), which allows for the capacity to interpret acts of motion as
a consequence of volitional mental states, is dependent on vision, audition, and
touch. The second mechanism (Eye Direction Detector), is primarily dependent on
 Sensory Sensitivities in Autism 209

vision. The third one (Shared Attention Mechanism), which allows for the capacity
to perceive that someone else is sensorially engaged in the same way as oneself, may
occur in any sensory domain. Finally, theory of mind is constructed based on the
mental states cultivated in the Ž rst two mechanisms, and processed by the third
attention mechanism.
In children with autism, Baron-Cohen (1995) reports on the presence of the Ž rst
two mechanisms, but the absence of Shared Attention Mechanism across visual,
auditory, and tactile domains. In contrast, children with severe sensory impairment
who did not have autism, such as blind children unable to rely on vision for shared
attention, augmented this mechanism with strong tactile and auditory cues.
With respect to the Ž ndings reported above, it may well be that the mechanisms
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014

underpinning the construction of the mental states of others are severely compro-
mised by sensory processing aberrations in autism, which prevent shared/joint
attention processes from eventuating. Peterson and Siegal (1995) present a challeng-
ing argument and state that theory of mind deŽ cit is also evidenced in children with
severe hearing impairment; signiŽ cantly reduced auditory input too, can be thought
of as a state of sensory aberration for the young nervous system. It could also be
conjectured that both an overwhelming barrage of sensory information, or being
unable to reach ordinary thresholds for processing of, and reacting to incoming
stimuli as experienced by children with autism, effectively constitutes a barrier and
inhibits the operation of the progressive mechanisms which form the substrates of
shared attention and mindreading with the caregiver, thus interrupting the social
interactivity.
Indeed, shared or joint attention as a precursor to formation of children’s theory
of mind as well as to communicative development seems to be widely established.
To cite a few examples, Leslie and Happe (1989) attributed early communication
impairment in autism to a faulty theory of mind module. Mundy, Sigman, and
Kasari (1994) attributed deŽ cits in a variety of nonverbal communication skills to
deŽ ciencies of a joint attention module. Mundy (1995) concluded that a preference
of communicative gestures for objects and events, rather than socially shared
attention, which is typically exhibited in young children with autism is a re ection
of a speciŽ c neurological subsystem which may not be adequately regulating and
promoting social-emotional approach behaviours.
It could perhaps be hypothesised that sensory under- or over-stimulation, pre-
sumably due to neural processing differences and/or deŽ cits, may make the child’s
responsiveness to joint attention bids a nonviable one, particularly in visual and
auditory domains which are crucial in early social transactions. It could further be
argued that, as predicted by a developmental contextual framework (Lerner, 1989),
the child’s diminished capacity for joint attention is likely to in uence the caregiver
negatively, thereby decreasing the frequency and intensity of the caregiver’s bids for
and initiations of ostensive communication. Such reduced input cannot be at-
tributed to the temperamental aloofness or detachment of the mother or caregiver,
a tenet of early views of the pathogenesis of autism. In fact, the mother may feel and
act dejected because of her perceptions of being rejected by the infant, if she
interprets the non-communicative behaviours of her child as being directed against
 210 K. Wood & A. Talay-Ongan

her, rather than re ecting an inability of the child. Such reciprocal in uences would
adversely affect not only the communicative development of the child, but also the
affective attachment relationship between the two. In fact, the incidence of secure
attachment in children aged 3 to 6 years with autism is reported to be 40%,
considerably lower than the 65% rating for such behaviour in general (Capps,
Sigman, & Mundy, 1994).
Interestingly, nearly 50 years ago Bergman and Escalona (1949) offered a psycho-
dynamic framework where unusual sensory sensitivities were explained within the
Freudian construct of “reizschutz,” a constitutional barrier preventing detrimental
stimuli from impinging on the developing ego. Within this framework, it was
speculated that children with unusual sensitivities developed psychoses as a conse-
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014

quence of the bombardment of sensory stimuli on their thin protective barrier. This
process was compounded by the mother’s inability to correctly regulate the level of
stimulation necessary for healthy development (Bergman & Escalona). The concept
of the “refrigerator mother” as an antecedent to the development of autistic
symptomatology has long been discredited; what is offered here is an alternative
explanation, that parental aloofness may the effect rather than the cause of the
disorder. Reduced interactions between the caregiver and the child would mean
reduced opportunities for linguistic scaffolding, that very mechanism upon which
language acquisition appears to be dependent (Bruner, 1975). It is thus hypothe-
sised that insecure attachment and language delay or impairment may be related
constructs in children with autism, fuelled by aberrations in the sensory-perceptual
processes. Obviously, in the absence of carefully monitored developmental data,
such interpretations must be considered to be speculative.
In conclusion, an argument is presented here for the con uence of various
frameworks for autism and the developmental domains impaired therein, which thus
far seem to have been evaluated independently of each other. The empirical
evidence for unusual sensory sensitivities in autism may be a vehicle to highlight the
complementary nature of neurogenic and theory of mind orientations to its causes;
presence of abnormal sensory experiences may also be precipitating and sustaining
factors in communicative and affective impairments associated with the disorder.
Given the plasticity of the developing nervous system and the windows of oppor-
tunity it affords in early childhood, further carefully controlled research is needed in
the development and assessment of these sensitivities from a very early age, which
may offer valuable information for effective early intervention strategies in autism.

Author Note
A full copy of the Sensory Sensitivity Questionnaire-Revised is available from the
Ž rst author.

References
AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
 Sensory Sensitivities in Autism 211

AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
AYERS, A.J. (1979). Sensory integration and the child: Sensory history. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
BARON-COHEN, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
BERGMAN, P. & ESCALONA , S.K. (1949). Unusual sensitivities in very young children. Psychoana-
lytic Study of the Child, 3, 333–353.
BETTISON, S. (1992). Sound sensitivity in autism. In Autism: The puzzle. Are the pieces starting
to Ž t? National conference 1992 proceedings (pp. 100–108). Melbourne: Victorian Autistic
Children’s and Adults’ Association.
BETTISON, S. (1994). “Auditory training” as a treatment for sound sensitivity in autism:
Preliminary results. Special Education Perspectives, 3, 1.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014

BETTISON, S. (1996). The long term effect of auditory training on children with autism. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26, 361–375.
BRUNER, J. (1975). From communication to language: A psychological perspective. Cognition, 3,
225–287.
CAPPS, L., SIGMAN, M. & MUNDY, P. (1994). Attachment and security in children with autism.
Development and Psychopathology, 6, 249–261.
EDELSON , S.M. (1992). Sensory problems questionnaire. Newberg, OR: Center for the Study of
Autism.
FIRTH, U. (1989). Autism: Explaining the enigma. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
GILLBERG, C., JOHANSSON, M., STEFFENBURG, S. & BERLIN, O. (1997). Auditory integration
training in children with autism. Autism, 1, 97–100.
GRANDIN , T. (1992). An inside view of autism. In E. SCHOPLER & G.B. MESIBOV (Eds.), High
functioning individuals with autism (pp. 105–126). New York: Plenum.
KRUG, D.A., ARICK , J. & ALMOND, P. (1980). Behavior checklist for identifying severely handi-
capped individuals with high levels of autistic behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 21, 221–229.
LERNER, J. (1989). Developmental contextualism and the life-span view of person-context
interaction. In M. BORNSTEIN & J. BRUNER (Eds.), Interaction in human development
(pp. 217–233). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
LESLIE, A.M. & HAPPE , F. (1989). Autism and ostensive communication: The relevance of
metarepresentation. Development and Psychopathology, 1, 205–212.
MUNDY, P. (1995). Joint attention and social-emotional approach behavior in children with
autism. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 63–82.
MUNDY, P., SIGMAN, M. & KASARI, C. (1994). Joint attention, developmental level, and symptom
presentation in autism. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 389–401.
NOURISIS, M.J. (1988). SPSS/PC 1 Advanced statistics V2.0. Sydney: SPSS Inc.
O’NEILL, M. & JONES , R.S.P. (1997). Sensory-perceptual abnormalities in autism: A case for more
research? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 283–293.
ORNITZ , E.M. (1973). Childhood autism: A review of the clinical and experimental literature.
California Medicine, 118, 21–47.
ORNITZ , E.M. (1985). Neurophysiology of infantile autism. Journal of the American Academy of
Child Psychiatry, 24, 251–262.
ORNITZ , E.M., G UTHRIE, D. & FARLEY, A.H. (1977). Early development of autistic children.
Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 7, 190–197.
PETERSON, C.C. & SIEGAL , M. (1995). Deafness, conversation and theory of mind. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 459–474.
RIMLAND, B. (1990). Sound sensitivity in autism. Autism Research Review International, 4(1), 6–12.
RIMLAND, B. (1991). Improving the auditory functioning of autistic persons: A comparison of the
Berard training approach with the Tomatis audio-phonology approach. Autism Research
Review International, 5(3), 1–4.
 212 K. Wood & A. Talay-Ongan

RUTTER, M. (1968/1985). Concepts in autism. A review of research. In A. DONNELAN (Ed.),

Classic readings in autism (pp. 179–209). New York: Teachers College Press.
SCHOPLER, E., REICHLER, R.J. & RENNER, B.R. (1988). The Childhood Autism Rating Scale (rev.
ed.). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
STELHI, A. (1991). The sound of a miracle. New York: Doubleday.
TRIBE, D. (1992). Making sense of sensory experience. In Autism: The puzzle. Are the pieces starting
to Ž t? National conference 1992 proceedings (pp. 141–147). Melbourne: Victorian Autistic
Children’s and Adults’ Association.
VOLKMAR, F.R., COHEN, D.J. & PAUL, R. (1986). An evaluation of DSM-III criteria for infantile
autism. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 25, 190–197.
WILLIAMS, D. (1994). Nobody nowhere. London: Doubleday.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 08:07 28 November 2014