Postural Control in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: What are the Most Striking Specificities and How Can They be Quantified?
A quick force-plate check gives you two clear numbers that separate autistic kids from peers.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team placed kids with and without autism on a force plate. Everyone stood still for quiet-stance trials.
Seventy-five tiny measures of sway were tracked. The goal was to find which ones best spot autism.
What they found
Fifteen metrics stood out. Autistic kids had stiffer, more regular sway paths.
The top flags were EOF/EO rate of change and trembling RMS—just two numbers capture the difference.
How this fits with other research
Lim et al. (2020) saw no sway gap in their sample. The clash fades when you note they did not limit age; kids may show the signal that mixed-age groups hide.
Lim et al. (2019) later showed adults with autism wobble more. The new child data bridges the line: posture looks odd early, stays odd, and can be caught with the same lab task.
Miltenberger et al. (2013) first used force plates in autism. They watched one-legged stance and linked bigger sway to higher symptom scores. The 2025 paper keeps the tech, swaps to two-leg stance, and still finds sway signatures.
Why it matters
You now have a short list of force-plate numbers that flag autism. Ask your clinic if they own a balance board or Wii fit plate. Run a 30-second quiet stand, eyes open, and check the EOF/EO rate and trembling RMS. If they drift far from norms, add balance goals to the plan and watch the data drop as motor skills improve.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a 30-second quiet-stand trial to your intake; note any stiff, robotic sway and share the clip with the OT.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Autistic children (AT) are known to exhibit distinct postural control patterns compared to neurotypical (NT) children. However, identifying and interpreting these differences can be complex due to the wide range of variables used to analyse Centre of Pressure (CoP) trajectories. This study aims to elucidate the specific characteristics of postural control in AT children by identifying the most discriminative CoP variables that distinguish them from NT children. The study evaluated 24 AT and 24 NT children while they stood on a force plate for 30 s under three conditions: eyes open (EO), eyes closed (EC), and the feet on a foam pad with eyes open (EOF). A total of 75 variables-including frequential, linear, and non-linear variables-were extracted from the CoP trajectory. These variables, expressed as the rate of change between the EC and EOF conditions relative to the EO condition, were compared between the AT and NT groups. A best-subsets approach was used to identify the most discriminative variables, and Pearson correlations were calculated to assess their relationship with age and Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) scores. Of the 75 variables analysed, 15 showed significant differences between the AT and NT groups. The best-subsets analysis and the correlations revealed that variables such as the rate of change between the EOF and EO conditions, and the root mean square of the trembling component of the CoP trajectory, were particularly discriminative. Autistic children demonstrated a more rigid and regular CoP trajectory, particularly in the EO condition, compared to NT children. These findings suggest that AT children have greater difficulty integrating multisensory information and an increased reliance on supraspinal processes for postural control.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2025 · doi:10.1177/1099800409341176