Childhood autism from the point of view of behavioral neurology.

Kunz et al. (1982) wrote a theory paper. They said autism behaviors come from two brain areas acting wrong. These areas are the mesocortical and the striatal systems.

The paper did not test kids. It did not give numbers. It only told a brain story to explain why children with autism move and act the way they do.

The team found no new data. They only linked old clues. They said, "If these two systems are off, you get autism signs."

No trials, no graphs, no proof. Just a map from brain parts to behavior.

Wing (1981) told a similar brain story one year earlier. Both papers guess that built-in brain trouble causes autism. G et al. just zoomed in on two smaller parts.

Waterhouse et al. (2014) later said, "Stop looking for one broken spot." They pushed past G et al. by asking us to check each child’s own brain profile. This new view replaces the old single-damage idea.

Padmanabhan et al. (2015) finally gave real scans. They showed the striatum does grow differently in autism. Their pictures turn the 1982 guess into something we can measure.

The 1982 paper gives you a simple lens: watch for motor and reward quirks tied to striatal circuits. When you see rigid play or flat affect, think, "Maybe this kid’s striatum needs a different route to learn." Use that idea to pick tasks that add extra motor or sensory steps before social demands.