Multidimensional research combining neuroimaging with psychophysiological and self-report measures guided by a clear theoretical model is necessary to understand how interoceptive differences link to the behavioral and cognitive characteristics of ASD. Sensory processing models and autism theory should also be updated to incorporate these recent findings.

Sensory reactivity is a diagnostic criterion for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and has been associated with poorer functional outcomes, behavioral difficulties, and autism severity across the lifespan. Yet, there is little consensus on best practice approaches to assessing sensory processing dysfunction in adolescents and adults with ASD. Despite growing evidence that sensory symptoms persist into adolescence and adulthood, there is a lack of norms for older age groups, and pediatric assessments may not target appropriate functional outcomes or environments. This review identified approaches used to measure sensory processing in the scientific literature, and to describe and compare these approaches to current best practice guidelines that can be incorporated into evidence-based practice. Method and Analysis: A search of scientific databases and grey literature (professional association and ASD society websites), from January 1987–May 2017, uncovered 4769 articles and 12 clinical guidelines. Study and sample characteristics were extracted, charted, and categorized according to assessment approach. Results: There were 66 articles included after article screening. Five categories of assessment approaches were identified: Self- and Proxy-Report Questionnaires, Psychophysical Assessment, Direct Behavioral Observation, Qualitative Interview Techniques, and Neuroimaging/EEG. Sensory research to date has focused on individuals with high-functioning ASD, most commonly through the use of self-report questionnaires. The Adolescent and Adult Sensory Profile (AASP) is the most widely used assessment measure (n = 22), however, a number of other assessment approaches may demonstrate strengths specific to the ASD population. Multi-method approaches to assessment (e.g., combining psychophysical or observation with questionnaires) may have clinical applicability to interdisciplinary clinical teams serving adolescents and adults with ASD. Contribution: A comprehensive knowledge of approaches is critical in the clinical assessment of a population characterized by symptomatic heterogeneity and wide-ranging cognitive profiles. This review should inform future development of international interdisciplinary clinical guidelines on sensory processing assessment in ASD across the lifespan.

Background: In youth and young adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), executive function (EF) deficits may be a promising treatment target with potential impact on everyday functioning. Objective: To conduct a pilot randomized, double-blind, parallel, controlled trial evaluating repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for EF deficits in ASD. Method: In Toronto, Ontario (November 2014 to June 2017), a 20-session, 4-week course of 20 Hz rTMS targeting dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (90%RMT) was compared to sham stimulation in 16e35 year-olds with ASD (28 male/12 female), without intellectual disability, who had impaired everyday EF performance (n ¼ 20 active/n ¼ 20 sham). Outcome measures evaluated protocol feasibility and clinical effects of active vs. sham rTMS on EF performance. The moderating effect of baseline functioning was explored. Results: Of eligible participants, 95% were enrolled and 95% of randomized participants completed the protocol. Adverse events across treatment arms were mild-to-moderate. There was no significant difference between active vs. sham rTMS on EF performance. Baseline adaptive functioning moderated the effect of rTMS, such that participants with lower baseline functioning experienced significant EF improvement in the active vs. sham group. Conclusions: Our pilot RCT demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of using high frequency rTMS targeting DLPFC in youth and young adults with autism. No evidence for efficacy of active versus sham rTMS on EF performance was found. However, we found promising preliminary evidence of EF performance improvement following active versus sham rTMS in participants with ASD with more severe adaptive functioning deficits. Future work could focus on examining efficacy of rTMS in this higher-need population.