Latent constructs underlying sensory subtypes in children with autism: A preliminary study.
Two hidden factors—taste/smell over-reaction and weak multisensory glue—shape sensory subtypes in autism.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Marsack et al. (2017) asked parents to fill out the Short Sensory Profile for their kids with autism.
The team ran a math model called independent-component analysis on the answers.
Goal: see if a few hidden factors could explain the messy mix of sensory problems.
What they found
Two factors showed up again and again.
Factor 1 is taste-and-smell hyper-reactivity.
Factor 2 is low-energy, weak multisensory integration.
These two hidden traits, not one big sensory score, seem to create the subtypes you see in clinics.
How this fits with other research
Hilton et al. (2010) already showed that touch, taste, and multisensory issues predict social trouble.
N et al. now give the math proof that those same domains form clean factors.
Liyew et al. (2025) used a different parent form and found five factors, not two.
The extra factors may come from the older age range and the Ethiopian sample, so the papers extend each other rather than clash.
Iarocci et al. (2006) first said multisensory theory should guide autism work; N et al. supply the numbers that back the idea.
Why it matters
Stop treating "sensory issues" as one blob on the assessment.
Screen for taste-smell hyper-reactivity and for weak multisensory integration.
Pick goals and toys that match the factor you see.
A child who gags on food needs a different plan than one who ignores sights and sounds.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Score SSP items by the two factors first, then write separate goals for taste-smell and multisensory targets.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Recent reports identify sensory subtypes in ASD based on shared patterns of responses to daily sensory stimuli [Ausderau et al., 2014; Lane, Molloy, & Bishop, 2014]. Lane et al. propose that two broad sensory dimensions, sensory reactivity and multisensory integration, best explain the differences between subtypes, however this has yet to be tested. The present study tests this hypothesis by examining the latent constructs underlying Lane's sensory subtypes. Participants for this study were caregivers of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) aged 2-12 years. Caregiver responses on the Short Sensory Profile (SSP), used to establish Lane's sensory subtypes, were extracted from two existing datasets (total n = 287). Independent component analyses were conducted to test the fit and interpretability of a two-construct structure underlying the SSP, and therefore, the sensory subtypes. The first construct was largely comprised of the taste/smell sensitivity domain, which describes hyper-reactivity to taste and smell stimuli. The second construct had a significant contribution from the low energy/weak domain, which describes behaviors that may be indicative of difficulties with multisensory integration. Findings provide initial support for our hypothesis that sensory reactivity and multisensory integration underlie Lane's sensory subtypes in ASD. Autism Res 2017, 10: 1364-1371. © 2017 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 2017 · doi:10.1002/aur.1602