Assessment of stimulus overselectivity with tactile compound stimuli in children with autism.

Ploog et al. (2007) tested how kids with autism feel and choose between two textured squares at once.

Each child first picked the trained "right" square, then faced new probe pairs to see which part they remembered.

The team ran the probe twice: once right after training and again after a short break.

On the first probe both groups looked equally over-selective, so you might think autism equals touch tunnel vision.

After the second probe only the autistic kids still clung to one texture, proving the extra test is what reveals true tactile overselectivity.

Foster et al. (1979) showed that switching from every-correct reward to a VR-3 schedule cuts visual overselectivity in half; O et al. now show the same population needs a second tactile probe to expose the bias.

Buyuktaskin et al. (2021) found autistic teens need longer gaps between touches to notice them, extending the 2007 work into older ages and timing skills.

Kennedy (2004) used touch-screen visual compounds with kids with ID and saw overselectivity drop after extra pre-training, mirroring O et al.’s message: test again or train more before you label a child as stuck on one cue.

Before you write "overselective" in an autistic learner’s report, run a follow-up probe with the most-chosen texture pitted against the trained one. If the narrow choice vanishes, the child may simply need more exemplars or a richer schedule, not a lifelong label.