1 / 18

Sensory-perceptual impairments in persons with intellectual disability and Autism

IALP ATHENS 23-08-2010. Sensory-perceptual impairments in persons with intellectual disability and Autism. Chris De Bal Lessius University College Antwerp Het GielsBos - Gierle. introduction.

starbuck
Download Presentation

Sensory-perceptual impairments in persons with intellectual disability and Autism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IALP ATHENS 23-08-2010 Sensory-perceptual impairments in persons with intellectual disability and Autism Chris De Bal Lessius University College Antwerp Het GielsBos - Gierle

  2. introduction • High prevalence of sensory-perceptual impairments and unusual behavioral responses to sensory stimuli in persons with ID and ASD(Denteneer & Verpoorten,2007; Dunn, Myles & Orr, 2002; Noens, 2004; O’Neill & Jones, 1997; Pernon et al., 2007; Rogers et al, 2003) • Clinical studies and autobiographical publications: • Hyper- and hyposensitivity • Sensory overload and distortion • Hyperselectivity • Processing difficulties

  3. Introduction • Still understudied (Goldstein, 2000) • Important consequences on the processing of information • Major role in existing communication disorders

  4. Research questions • Prevalence of hypersensitivity to sensory stimuli? • Difference in prevalence hypersensitivity between senses? • Kind of hypersensitive reactions (interest – discomfort / consistent – inconsistent)? • Correlation results Sensory Profile Checklist and ComFor?

  5. Method - subjects • 30 subjects • Criteria: • Severe ID, developmental age (DA) 2;0 – 5;0 • ASD • Assessement ComFor possible • No hearing or visual impairment • Mean DA: 42 m (SD: 11,96)

  6. Method- procedure • Interview with caregiver: Sensory Profile Checklist: 40 min. (Bogdashina, 2003) • Inventarisation of 5 senses: visual, auditive, tactile, smell, taste • Interest in sensory stimulus: gradation from attention to fascination • Discomfort from sensory stimulus: gradation from defence to pain • Results ComFor • Processing of data: SPSS

  7. Results • Prevalence of hypersensitivity (N = 30) %

  8. Results • Prevalence of hypersensitivity (N = 30) % smell/taste auditive

  9. Results • Total number of responses (N = 254) N auditive smell/taste

  10. Results • Total number of responses: consistent-inconsistent (N = 254) N

  11. Results • Correlation results Sensory Profile Checklist and ComFor (N = 30): influence of hypersensitivity on communication level?

  12. Results • No correlation Fisher’s Exact test: 1,00 (exact sig. 2-sided);  = 0,05

  13. Discussion • High prevalence also in other studies: • Observations/checklists: Dahlgren & Gillberg (1989); Denteneer & Verpoorten (2007); Dunn, Myles & Orr (2002); Kientz & Dunn (1997); Lord (1995); Noens (2004); O’Neill & Jones (1997); Ornitz (1989); Pernon et al. (2007); Rogers et al. (2003) • Autobiographical information: Gerland (1998); Grandin (1997); van Dalen (1994); Williams (1996) • Objective studies: ERP (Gillberg & Coleman, 2000; Kemner et al., 1994; Lincoln, 1995)

  14. Discussion • Hypersensitivity: • For different senses in same person: see also Ornitz et al. (1977, 1978); Rogers et al. (2003); Verpoorten (2007) • Interest and discomfort in same person (80%) • Gradation in interest and discomfort • Almost all subjects hypersensitive reactions to auditive (97%) followed by tactile (77%) stimuli: see also Bettison (1994); Dahlgren & Gillberg (1989); Rogers et al. (2003) • 254 reactions: 102 auditive • More easy to detect?

  15. Discussion • No correlation between results SPC and ComFor • Hypothesis: sense making (communication) based on perception of sensory stimuli: see also Happé (2001); Frith (2004); Noens (2004); van Berckelaer (2002); Denteneer & Verpoorten (2007) • Possible explanation: ComFor overestimation of real communication Level? • Structured context • Minimum od sensory stimuli • No correlation found between symptoms in sensory and social-communicative domain (Rogers et al., 2003)

  16. Discussion • Critical reflections: • Attentiveness / percepience / accuracy of caregivers (different caregivers + observation by professional) •  frequently used method •  valid reflection of sensory responsivity (information over longer period of time) •  congruence with clinical report and psychophysiological measures (Miller et al., 1999) • Not always easy to answer  more refined instruments?

  17. Discussion • Further research: • Also study of hyporesponsivity • Specificity of this symptoms to autism? • How early in development present? • Relation with developmental level? • Relevance to SLT? • Taking into account during therapy • Taking into account in daily living (avoiding stimuli, arranging environment, informing relatives, …)

  18. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Acknowledgment: Anke Tielemans (student who co-operated in study) Chris.debal@lessius.eu Lessius University College Antwerp-Belgium

More Related