Sensory hypersensitivity predicts repetitive behaviours in autistic and typically-developing children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between sensory hypersensitivity and restricted interests and repetitive behaviours associated with autism spectrum disorder and their typically-developing peers. Furthermore, the aims included the examination of the relationship across sensory modalities and various types of restricted interests and repetitive behaviours. Data were collected from the parents of 114 children: 49 of whom were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and 65 typically-developing children. Parents completed the Sensory Profile 2 - Child Version and the Repetitive Behaviours Questionnaire, Second Edition. The results suggested that sensory hypersensitivity is strongly related to the core autism spectrum disorder symptom of repetitive behaviours. This relationship was not specific to autism spectrum disorder; repetitive behaviours significantly increased with sensory hypersensitivity in typically-developing individuals as well. This effect was consistent across all modalities in both autism spectrum disorder and typically developing groups; group differences were observed in the oral and tactile modalities. Furthermore, sensory hypersensitivity was significantly predictive of repetitive behaviours in all participants, autism spectrum disorder and typically-developing, and importantly, autism spectrum disorder diagnosis did not add any predictive influence above and beyond sensory hypersensitivity. Finally, sensory hypersensitivity was significantly predictive of all subdomains of repetitive behaviours, including repetitive motor movements, rigidity and adherence to routine, preoccupation with restricted patterns of interest and unusual sensory interests, and diagnosis added no predictive ability beyond sensory hypersensitivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".