Sensory Processing and Motor Deficits In Children with ASD

Background: Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) have deficits in the motor domain (Provost et al., 2007, Staples & Reid, 2010) and exhibit sensory processing difficulties (Kern et al., 2007; Wiggins et al., 2009).  Jasmine and colleagues (2009) compared sensory responses, daily living skills,  and motor skills in preschoolers and found few significant correlations.  The relationship between sensory processing and motor ability is not well understood.

Objectives: To better understand motor and sensory function of school aged children with ASD three questions were posed; 1) is there a difference in gross motor skills and abilities in children with high and low functioning ASD and their neurotypical peers; 2) is there a difference in sensory processing in children with high and low functioning ASD and their neurotypical peers; and 3) is there a correlation between sensory processing and gross motor performance.  

 Methods: Thirty-three children 5-10 years of age, 12 with a diagnosis of high-functioning autism (HFA), 9 with ASD and poor receptive language, and 12 typically developing children completed two tests of motor development, the Test of Gross Motor Development 2 and the Movement ABC. A receptive language test, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, was administered to determine receptive language skill, children who scored more than 1.5 SD from the mean were classified as having poor receptive language. Parents completed the Sensory Processing Measure (SPM), a standardized questionnaire regarding their child’s sensory preferences. One-way analysis of variance was performed to compare the results of the three groups on the TGMD-II, M-ABC, and SPM. The relationship between motor scores and sensory scores was explored through correlation analysis.

Results: Children with ASD displayed significant motor deficits (TGMD-II F=17.23, p<0.01; M-ABC F=44.22, p<0.01) and sensory processing difficulties (F=47.9, p<0.01) when compared to neurotypical peers. Greater sensory problems were related to motor deficits (r=0.79), however when the groups were separated the relationship decreased. Scores on the TGMD-II correlated moderately to the Sensory Processing Measure (r=0.52) for the groups with ASD. A social participation component of the SPM, which does not factor into the final score, correlated significantly with motor performance (TGMD-II r =0.80; M-ABC r =0.75).

Conclusions: Children with ASD had significantly more difficulty in the motor domain and sensory processing than children without ASD. There was no significant difference between the ASD groups on the TGMD-II and SPM. However the children with HFA scored significantly better than children with poor receptive language on the M-ABC. This finding suggests that the scores on the M-ABC may reflect poor comprehension of tasks as well as motor ability. Greater sensory problems were related to motor deficits for the total sample. This decreased when the groups were analyzed separately.  All children with ASD had sensory processing difficulties which were moderately related to motor deficits. The small sample size limits generalizability of these findings. One finding of interest is the correlation between motor performance and social participation, this is in agreement with recent data from other studies (ex: McDonald et al., 2010) and should be examined in the future