Close to 90% of individuals in the Autism Spectrum have atypical responses and obsessions/ fixations with sensory stimuli. For example, some may enjoy looking at bright lights while some may actively avoid the sound of people scratching their skin. Previous studies have observed these patterns of responses in neurotypical siblings of individuals with Autism, but not in their parents- until recently.
In a research published in Molecular Autism on 3 April 2014, Uljarevic et al. set out to investigate whether parents (specifically, the mothers) of children and adolescents in the Autism Spectrum have unusual reactions to sensory stimuli. The researchers asked fifty mothers to complete the Adolescent and Adult Sensory Profile (AASP) which is a measure of people’s hypo-sensitivity, hyper-sensitivity, sensation-seeking and sensory-avoiding tendencies.
The study’s findings are as follows:
31 out of 50 participants (62%) recognize stimuli slower or weaker than the average population
22 (44%) were found to be hyper-sensitive but were able to tolerate unpleasant stimuli
24 (48%) actively avoid unbearable stimuli
Only 2% of the mothers scored within the ‘average-range‘, i.e. showed ‘normal’ responses to stimuli
Treat these findings with caution
As with every scientific finding, it is important not to get carried away with these findings. They need to be interpreted with caution. Despite having similar patterns of responses to their children with Autism, the participants’ atypical sensory reactions could be due to anxiety. In addition, since this is the first study to investigate the subject in this population with such a small sample size (very few participants), more studies need to be conducted to fully support the findings. Lastly, genetic studies are needed to investigate whether or not genes play a role in atypical sensory reactions in Autism.
Whether it’s Carly Rae Jespen’s Call Me Maybe, Nickelback’s How You Remind Me, or Maroon 5’s Moves Like Jagger, we all had a song or two that has been stuck in our heads for a while and we don’t quite know why. Such an experience is called ‘Earworm’, a term which is a direct translation of the German word ‘Ohrwurm’.It has been found that around 90% of the population have had such an experience at least once a week. Earworms have been found to last between a few minutes to a couple of hours (Beaman & Williams, 2010). Although it is a common experience, around 15% of people claimed that Earworms are ‘disturbing’ and ‘unpleasant’ (Liikkanen, 2008).
WHY DOES IT HAPPEN?
Although there isn’t a definitive theory which can explain why how songs get stuck in our heads, there have been a few suggestions:
Exposure: Some have proposed that songs/tunes are more memorable than others because we’ve listened to them a lot of times. However, a research by Victoria Williamson and her colleagues (Williamson et al., 2011) found that listening to a song is not a necessary pre-requisite for a song ‘worm-into’ our brains. Their findings suggest that being exposed to a stimuli which are (sometimes vaguely) related to a song can induce an Earworm. For instance, reading a number plate with the letters CMM can lead to remembering Call Me Maybe.
Memories: Being in the same place where you’ve heard a song can be enough to trigger an experience.
Mood: Williamson et al.’s findings also suggest that being in the same mood as you were when you first heard a song can also trigger Earworms.
Boredom: The same study have also found that in some cases, Earworms begun when people were bored or in a ‘low-attention state’.
HOW CAN I STOP IT?
Now that we know the possible reasons why an Earworm manifests, we must know of any strategies of stopping it. In a research conducted by Hyman et al. (2012), participants were asked to listen to a variety of songs, from those of the Beatles to current ones like Lady Gaga’s. They then completed a number of different puzzles, with varying difficulties. After these, they were asked to report whether there are any songs that are playing on their heads (and did so again after 24 hours). They found that puzzles which are too easy and too difficult induced the most number of Earworms. The researchers suggested that:
Earworms are manifestations of Zeigarnik Effect, i.e. we only cease to remember things/tasks when they are completed. In other words, a tune lingers in our heads because only a certain part (and not the whole of it) plays in our head. Hence, if we want it to stop, we need to consciously ‘play’ the whole of it.
Also, after we’ve listened to a piece of music, we need to perform an activity that will keep our minds and/or bodies occupied. However, we need to consciously avoid tasks that are too easy or too difficult for us.
HERE ARE SOME EARWORM-INDUCING SONGS FOR YOU:
REFERENCES:
Beaman CP, & Williams TI (2010). Earworms (‘stuck song syndrome’): Towards a natural history of intrusive thoughts.British Journal of Psychology, 101(4), 637-653.
Hyman, I., Burland, N., Duskin, H., Cook, M., Roy, C., McGrath, J., and Roundhill, R. (2012). Going Gaga: Investigating, Creating, and Manipulating the Song Stuck in My Head. Applied Cognitive Psychology DOI:10.1002/acp.2897
Liikkanen L.A. (2008) Music in everymind: Commonality of involuntary musical imagery. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Music Perception and Cognition. Sapporo, Japan.
Williamson, V., Jilka, S., Fry, J., Finkel, S., Mullensiefen, D., and Stewart, L. (2011). How do “earworms” start? Classifying the everyday circumstances of Involuntary Musical ImageryPsychology of Music DOI: 10.1177/0305735611418553
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), also known as the ‘bible of psychiatric diagnosis’ has been approved last month. Although the actual publication will not be until May of this year, the revisions seems to be final.
Along with this new revision is a major overhaul of the diagnostic criteria and a new conceptualization of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). The proposed changes have been based on a large body of research and have been discussed by qualified professionals. They are aimed to improve the diagnosis for ASD and to aid professionals to give specific interventions to specific needs of each individual.
Here are the changes:
1. A blanket term of Autism Spectrum Disorders will be used. Asperger’s Syndrome and Pervasive Developmental Disorders Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) will be removed- The DSM-5 panel decided to remove the sub-categories of ASD since there is no sound evidence to suggest that there really is a need for them. For instance, people with Asperger’s Syndrome and High Functioning Autism are not substantially different from one another, i.e. their symptoms overlap a lot. Additionally, PDD-NOS is not very clear and diagnosis varies from one professional to another- you can be diagnosed with PDD-NOS with mild symptoms or only one or two symptoms.
It is important to note that people who are currently diagnosed as having Asperger’s Syndrome and PDD-NOSwill be given a new diagnosis after re-evaluation. I personally believe that this change will have a significant effect on people with AS and PDD-NOS since a large number of them identify greatly with their diagnosis (although some welcome the change).
2. No longer a TRIAD of IMPAIRMENTS: Most of the literature in Autism describe it as having three main symptoms: Communication impairments, Limited Imagination and Repetitive Behaviours, and Impairments in Social Interactions. In the DSM-V however, it is reduced into two. Firstly, Social and Communication Domain- which combines social interaction aspects and verbal/ non-verbal communication aspects. Secondly, Restricted and Repetitive Interests and Behaviours, which includes ‘Stereotyped and Repetitive Speech’ and ‘Hyper- or Hypo-Sensitivity to Sensory Aspects of the Environment’. It is important to note that deficits in each of these areas must be ‘impairing’ before one can be diagnosed with Autism.
3. Symptoms may not fully manifest until demands exceed capacity: Although the DSM-V requires most symptoms to be present in early childhood (before age 3), it also acknowledges that children may not have other symptoms because of their environments, or any other reason.
4. Clinicians should include Specifiers: Along with an ASD diagnosis, clinicians will be asked to include a description of each children in order to monitor the onset and (if applicable) the progression of each determinants. Specifiers include Intellectual Ability, Language Competence, Motor Co-ordination, difficulties in Literacy/Numeracy, and other disorders.
Using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), Carter et al. (20120) aimed to find out the difference between the cognitive processes used by children with Autism when making decisions in social situations against those used by ‘Typically Developing (TD) children. Twenty five children (12 with Autism; 13 TD) were shown 32 pictures. In 16 of those, the children were asked to identify whether or not the target person (blonde-haired boy) was doing a bad thing, whilst on the other 16 pictures, the children were asked whether the activity took place outdoors.
Carter et al.’s (2012) findings showed no signficant differences in both groups’ performance on the task. However, the fMRI scans revealed that the social and language brain regions of the children with Autism’s brains showed very little activation in comparison to those of the TD children. The researchers proposed that these findings could indicate that despite the ability of the children with ASD to correctly identify the inappropriate behaviour, they find it difficult to verbally explain why such behaviours are inappropriate.
Reference:
Carter, E.J., Williams, D.L., Minshew, N.J., & Lehman, J.F. (2012). Is He Being Bad? Social and Language Brain Networks during Social Judgment in Children with Autism. PLoS ONE,; 7 (10): e47241 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0047241