Sensory Reactivity of Infants at Elevated Likelihood of Autism and Associations with Caregiver Responsiveness.
Emily Campi, Elizabeth Choi, Yun-Ju Chen and 6 others
PMID 36307744WHAT IT FOUND
Infants who seemed to miss sensory cues received less caregiver reaction, unless they also showed strong negative reactions.
When strong negative reactions were present, more missed cues went with more caregiver reaction.
Key findings
01The association between sensory hyporeactivity and caregiver reaction depended on sensory hyperreactivity level.
02For infants with sensory hyperreactivity below 1.48, higher sensory hyporeactivity was associated with lower caregiver reaction; for those above 2.23, higher sensory hyporeactivity was associated with higher caregiver reaction.
03Sensory hyporeactivity and sensory hyperreactivity were not significantly correlated with caregiver reaction when examined separately.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
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 study included 43 infants, which the authors said reduced statistical power and prevented adjustment for possible covariates such as a proxy for child IQ and maternal education. The design measured infant sensory reactivity and caregiver reaction at the same time, so it cannot show that one caused the other. Autism diagnostic follow-up did not happen because of COVID-19, so the infants' later diagnoses are unknown. Sensory hyperreactivity scores had a restricted range, and no child had extreme scores on both hyporeactivity and hyperreactivity. The sample was selected from community screening for elevated likelihood for autism or other neurodevelopmental conditions, not from confirmed autism diagnoses.
Declared interests
The supplied text lists funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and provides no author conflict of interest statement.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the finding as evidence that caregivers are at fault or that training them will improve autism outcomes. The study is small, measured things at the same time, and did not test an intervention.