Sensory‐modulation disruption, electrodermal responses, and functional behaviors

Abstract

It was hypothesized that children clinically identified with sensory‐modulation disruptions (SMD) would have atypical physiological responses to sensation, and that such responses would predict parent‐reported behavioral responses to sensation. Nineteen children with clinically identified disruptions, aged 3 to 9 years, mean 6.0 years, and 19 age‐and sex‐matched healthy (control) children, aged 3 to 9 years, mean 6.6 years, were examined. The subjects were presented with five stimuli. Ten trials were conducted for each stimulus and the electrodermal activity of the child was recorded. Four children with SMD did not show electrodermal responses (EDR) to stimulation; all control children responded. Excluding non‐responders, children with SMD showed more and larger EDR than control children. Participants with disruptions habituated more slowly to repeated stimulation, as measured by the number of responses to stimuli and proportion of stimuli that evoked responses. Children with atypical EDR had more parent‐reported abnormal behavioral responses to sensation. Children with clinically identified SMD respond physiologically differently to sensory stimuli than typically developing children; these differences have ramifications for functional behavior.

The Role of Sensory Modulation Deficits and Behavioral Symptoms in a Diagnosis for Early Childhood

“…This result is consistent with the first psychophysiological studies conducted using infants and young children with RD symptoms, in which different patterns of physiological reactivity were observed in relation to normally developing children [22,47]. The results of this study also agree with those of psychophysiological studies that have compared children who have sensory modulation dysfunction (SMD) with normally developing children, with findings such as a higher frequency and amplitude in skin conductance [15], different event-related potential patterns [14], and increased parasympathetic responses [16] with regard to task performance in children with SMD.…”

“…Relatedly, several studies have noted the phenotypic similarities between RDSP and other diagnoses in toddlers [7,10,[13][14][15][16] such as anxiety [17] or other emotional problems [18], Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) [13] and other ''relationship-based diagnoses'' [19]. This similarity has led researchers to question whether RDSP symptoms can help to distinguish RDSP from the other psychiatric disorders that affect children [20,21].…”

A Population-Based Twin Study of Parentally Reported Tactile and Auditory Defensiveness in Young Children

“…Also, children may respond differently to sensory experiences in different modalities. Some research suggests that a general sensory modulation disorder underlies symptoms of both tactile and auditory defensiveness (McIntosh, Miller, Shyu, & Hagerman, 1999), but the specificity issue remains open. Again, knowing if one type of sensory defensiveness shares genetic variance with another could add to our understanding of the relationship between the two sensory domains.…”

Validating Regulatory Sensory Processing Disorders Using the Sensory Profile and Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL 1½–5)

“…This study asserted that over-reactivity in the area of auditory defensiveness as well as the tactile area had a greater association with emotional symptoms than other sensory areas (Ben-Sasson et al 2009). Other studies, which compared sensory modulation deficits between children with SPD and children with no diagnosis (McIntosh et al 1999b), found the greatest differences between groups in regards to the auditory area. The lack of significant differences in other sensory areas in the current study may be related to sample size and/or the sample origin.…”

“…In order to assess sensory modulation deficits in infants and toddlers, Dunn (2001) developed the Infant/ Toddler Sensory Profile schedule. Dunn's model has evidence of external validity due to the significant association between the electrodermal responses given by children with and without SMD or different sensory patterns of the short sensory profile (SSP) (McIntosh et al 1999b;Schaaf 2001) as well as the discriminant capacity of the clinical samples (Dunn 2001).…”