Social and non‐social sensory responsivity in toddlers at high‐risk for autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical evidence concerning sensory responsivity in young children who later develop autism spectrum disorder (ASD) remains relatively limited. It is unclear whether specific patterns or aspects of sensory responsivity underlay the emergence of the disorder. The goals of this study were to (a) examine whether social versus non-social context impacted the expression of sensory responsivity in infants at high risk for ASD, and (b) examine if sensory responsivity in social or non-social contexts was associated with severity of ASD symptoms. The Sensory Experiences Questionnaire 2.1 was collected for 338 infants (131 females, 207 males) at high-risk for ASD at 12 and/or 24 months of age. High-risk toddlers meeting diagnostic criteria for ASD (n = 75) showed elevated sensory responsivity in both social and non-social contexts at 12 months of age and differences widened over the second year of life. Individuals with ASD demonstrate higher responsivity in both contexts suggestive of generalized atypical sensory responsivity in ASD. LAY SUMMARY: Behaviors such as avoiding or noticing sensory input (e.g., sounds, touches) are often different in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) than those without. The reason for this is widely unknown. The findings from this study show that in toddlers, sensory responsivity increased in both social and non-social situations. Therefore, the setting of sensory input does not explain these differences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".