Tactile cortical responses and association with tactile reactivity in young children on the autism spectrum.

The sample was small, with 28 autistic and 41 neurotypical children analysed, so it may have missed subtle differences. The study did not test treatment, so it cannot show that brain responses cause tactile difficulties or that a therapy works. Five of 33 autistic children and two of 45 neurotypical children did not tolerate the EEG procedure, and two neurotypical children were excluded for scoring above the autism cut-off, so the analysed sample may not represent all children in this age range. Autistic children had lower trial retention than neurotypical children, and the authors noted that upset or irritable children were less compliant, which could bias the EEG sample. The autism group included children with comorbidities, medication histories, and a wide non-verbal IQ range, including three children with non-verbal IQ below 70. The group was mostly male, with a male-to-female ratio of 3.7:1 in the autism group. Several associations and exploratory sensory grouping results did not survive correction for multiple comparisons, so they need replication. The tactile task used brief vibrotactile stimulation to the fingertips, which tests discriminative touch but not affective touch from hairy skin. Tactile reactivity was measured by parent report, not direct observation, and the laboratory EEG task may not capture everyday reactions to touch.

The study was funded by the Owerko Centre at the Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, the Mathison Centre for Mental Health Research and Education, the Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform, Alberta Innovates, the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the University of Calgary, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Sick Kids Foundation, and the University of Calgary URGC. No author conflicts are stated in the supplied text.

Do not conclude that a tactile EEG measure can diagnose autism or guide therapy. The main early and mid-latency responses did not differ between groups, the later N140 difference was only for peak latency, and several associations did not survive correction.