Relative Complexity in Repetitive Structure and Visual Preference for Geometric Figures in Autistic Individuals: A Pilot Study.

Suda et al. (2026) watched where preschoolers looked on a screen.

They showed kids with autism and typical kids short cartoons. Some clips looped the same motion over and over. Other clips moved in random order.

A small camera tracked each child’s eyes while parents filled out a short form about repetitive play at home.

Children with autism stared longer at the looping clips than the random ones. Typical kids split their gaze evenly.

The longer a child watched the loops, the more parents marked repetitive behaviors on the form.

Eye gaze gave a quick, number-based peek at everyday repetitive habits.

Wang et al. (2021) saw the same preference, but they also found that about one in four autistic kids liked biological motion instead. The new study fits this picture: most, not all, kids with autism are drawn to repetition.

Leaf et al. (2012) counted hand-flaps and line-ups in toddlers. Their tally matches the new gaze score, showing the two measures track the same trait.

Sievers et al. (2020) looks like a clash: their autistic sample failed to learn simple repeating patterns. The gap fades when you see age and task differences. Momoka’s preschoolers only watched looping cartoons, while B et al. tested older kids on tricky spatial sequences. Preference and learning are separate gears in the repetition engine.

You can clock repetitive style in under two minutes with a cartoon clip and an eye-tracker or cheap webcam. No toys to code, no long checklists.

If a client locks onto loops, fold that interest into reinforcers or use it as a reward for social tasks. If gaze is flat across clips, try other sensory hooks.

Quick gaze data can also show parents an objective sign of their child’s style, making behavior-talk less abstract and more visual.