Analysis shows a positive correlation between sensory hyper- and hypo-responsivity in children with autism, indicating neural mechanisms may underlie this relationship.
Background: Differences in sensory processing are a core feature of autism spectrum disorder. Hyper- and hyporesponsivity to sensory stimuli have historically been conceptualized as separate constructs but may co-occur within individuals. Sensory processing may impact both lower and higher-level cognitive processes; thus, it is crucial to understand the relationships between hyper- and hyporesponsivity within and across modalities, as well as the relationship between sensory processing and other aspects of development in both autistic and typically developing (TD) children. Methods: In 3-4-year-old children (n=41 autism; n=37 TD), we assessed relationships between sensory hyper- and hyporesponsivity both within and across visual, auditory, touch, and oral sensory modalities as measured by caregiver report. Secondary analyses evaluated relationships between sensory responsivity, social communication, and cognitive abilities. Findings: We found a positive correlation between sensory hyper- and hyporesponsivity (r = .788, p < .001). These associations persisted within groups and within and across modalities. There are positive associations between sensory responsivity and social interaction, communication, and nonverbal developmental quotient, with associations between sensory responsivity and social communication driven by associations within the autism group. Interpretation: The positive correlations between hyper- and hyporesponsivity both within and across sensory modalities, which we term the Sensory Paradox, may provide key clues to understanding sensory processing in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders by pointing towards neural circuit-level mechanisms that may underlie neurodevelopmental conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takach et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: