ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Atypical modulation of electrodermal reactivity during exposure to graded unisensory and multisensory stimuli in autistic children and adolescents.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the substantial increase in research on sensory processing in autism, the standardization of their assessment remains non-consensual. Physiological measures such as electrodermal reactivity (EDR) are still rarely used in clinical practice, although previous studies have reported differences in reactivity between autistic individuals and the general population. This experimental study aimed to test electrodermal reactivity (EDR) as an objective and measurable marker of sensory perception in children and adolescents with autism. Methods: Data were collected from 37 participants, including 21 typically developing children (11 girls and 10 boys, M = 9.86 years) and 16 autistic children (all boys, M = 11.37 years). EDR was assessed both in its tonic (SCL) and phasic (SCR) components. Participants were exposed to three types of stimuli: unisensory (visual or auditory) and multisensory (audiovisual). Each stimulus was presented at increasing intensity from the first to the third exposure (nine conditions in total). Results: SCL was consistently lower in autistic participants as compared to typically developing peers. SCR was lower in autistic participants for 4 exposure conditions out of 9. In contrast, no between group differences were found in relation to stimulus intensity or between unisensory and multisensory modalities. Within-group comparisons revealed significant increases in SCR during stimulus conditions only in the control group. Additionally, no significant age-related effects were observed. Conclusions: These findings highlight a specific EDR pattern in autistic children and adolescents during sensory stimulus processing characterized by hypoactivity in both tonic and phasic components of the signal. Future research should aim to better characterize this profile using a broader range of stimuli, across varied exposure contexts, and by integrating these physiological measures with cognitive assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.