Moving Together: Social Motor Synchrony in Autistic Peer Partners Depends on Partner and Activity Type.
Devyn Glass, Nicola Yuill
PMID 37310543WHAT IT FOUND
Autistic pairs moved in step at least as much as non-autistic pairs overall, and more during a two-tablet game.
This small study does not show a treatment effect.
Key findings
01Autistic pairs had higher body-movement synchrony than non-autistic pairs across the two games, but the authors caution because confidence intervals cross zero.
02Autistic pairs' synchrony was higher than random non-interacting pairs, while non-autistic pairs' synchrony was not clearly higher than chance.
03The shared single-tablet game produced more synchrony than the two-tablet game for the pairs overall.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample was small: 25 children, and only four autistic pairs completed both activities, with two completing Connect only and one completing Colours only. The authors caution that confidence intervals cross zero, so the group difference is provisional. Teachers selected familiar, compatible same-neurotype pairs, so the study does not address unfamiliar pairs or autistic and non-autistic pairs interacting together. The groups differed in gender composition: most autistic pairs were boy-boy pairs, while all non-autistic pairs were mixed gender. The study measured only body movement synchrony, not communication, imitation, shared attention, or whether the interaction was meaningful to the children. There was no intervention or treatment outcome, so it cannot show that any activity improves social or communication skills.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the higher synchrony score as proof that autistic children are more socially connected or that the tablet game improves interaction. The study measured only movement matching in a small group, the authors warned that confidence intervals cross zero, and no treatment outcome was tested.