Autism notes: adapting to a noisy sensory inputs

pam

Extracts from: Brincker, M., & Torres, E. B. (2013). Noise from the periphery in autism.Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 7, 34. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2013.00034

Brinckner and Torres argue that: " the development of cortically based mental processes and autonomous control relies on the complexities and proper function of the peripheral nervous systems. 

"We propose here that many behavioral-level findings can be re-defined as downstream effects of how developing nervous systems attempt to cope and adapt to the challenges of having various noisy, unpredictable, and unreliable peripheral inputs."

Self-advocates have long tried to describe their unique phenomenological experiences—and many talk about not being able to trust, feel, or control their bodies as they would intentionally prefer. Many tell us that parts of their bodies seem to disintegrate experientially, that sensory stimulations are either too intensely invading or go unnoticed, entirely collapsing into each other as echoes (Savarese, 2007; Robledo et al., 2012; Amos,2013).

Such experiences of living and coping with ASD, along with the widespread reports of sensorimotor and autonomic differences have led us to explore the hypothesis that individuals with autism are coping with unreliable peripheral signals from atypically self-organized subsystems. On the basis of recent sensorimotor findings (Torres et al., 2013) discussed below we speculate that various kinds of peripheral noise result in unpredictability of the person's movements and their re-afferent kinesthetic proprioception. These in turn impede central coordination and autonomous control, and force the developing system to find alternative avenues of prediction and anticipatory control.

Sensing through movement—not all variability is created equal

What do we mean by noise? Noise might be defined as any kind of sensed phenomenon or change that cannot be interpreted as a signal (Kosko, 2006). Thus, the idea of noise instantly craves a discussion of how we interpret or make sense of the stochastic world that impinges on all our afferent nerves at any point in time; aka the riddle of sense perception that has haunted natural philosophers since antiquity. How can we, with a body in constant motion, get to a coherent and stable perception of anything? The scientific and philosophical world is starting to wake up to the idea that this riddle must be solved through understanding the dynamics of predictive anticipation not only of own body position and motion in time, but also the contents of what is perceived (Friston, 2012). But how do we do this if our movements are always inherently variable—even when trying to reproduce the same movement? (Bernstein, 1967).

What have often been overlooked are the processes and relevance of continuously accumulating evidence from the fluctuations in our motions. By gaining a probabilistic expectation about the variability itself, the system can acquire predictable and reliable “motor priors.” Rather than merely adding “noise” (Faisal et al.,2008), sensory-motor variability can serve as actively sampled and sharpened informative “signals” and as an aid in adaptively reshaping old priors.