Social motor synchrony in autism spectrum conditions: A systematic review.
Devyn Glass, Nicola Yuill
PMID 38014541WHAT IT FOUND
Autistic people showed lower movement synchrony than non-autistic pairs in most tasks.
Differences were largest when tasks required intentional coordination or unfamiliar partners. Synchrony increased over time in rhythmic therapy when the same therapist and child worked together.
Key findings
01Most studies found lower social motor synchrony in pairs involving an autistic person compared with non-autistic pairs.
02Synchrony differences were often absent or smaller in spontaneous tasks, or when the autistic child chose the topic, compared with intentional or constrained tasks.
03Five of six intervention studies showed increased synchrony over time, but only when the therapist and child remained the same pair.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat 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 review included only 29 studies with highly heterogeneous tasks and measurement methods, preventing quantitative meta-analysis. Most studies involved unfamiliar partners and one-off interactions, which may not reflect real-world clinical or social relationships. Very few studies included pairs of two autistic people, limiting understanding of same-neurotype synchrony. Samples were predominantly described as 'high-functioning', with very little representation of autistic people who are minimally-verbal or have co-occurring intellectual disability. Many studies excluded participants with co-occurring conditions like epilepsy or sensory processing differences, reducing generalisability.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest and received no financial support for the research.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret lower synchrony in intentional tasks as a fixed social deficit. The review found that synchrony differences often disappeared in spontaneous or client-led conditions, and that cognitive demands of the task may selectively disadvantage autistic participants. Also, do not assume all therapy models work equally; increased synchrony in interventions was only seen when the therapist and child remained the same pair over time.