Welcome back to Reading the Research, where I trawl the Internet to find noteworthy research on autism and related subjects, then discuss it in brief with bits from my own life, research, and observations.
Today's article is one of those developments that makes me pause and wonder whether the pace of innovation is too fast for our good sense sometimes. On the face of things, having some kind of automated alert that a nonspeaking autistic person is getting stressed or upset seems like a good idea. And it's not entirely a bad idea, to be honest. Potentially a lot of meltdowns could be noticed and avoided, which could mean less worry and less property damage/physical damage to people.
My worry here is twofold. First, a 60% rate of success is barely better than flipping a coin. A lot of things can make a person sweat, such as "eating spicy food," "being in a room that's too warm," "being sick," and "drinking a cup of coffee." This is not, on the whole, a great indicator of an incoming problem. In particular, this tool wouldn't seem to be terribly useful when a person is exercising. They'd already be sweating from the exertion, which would set it off without there being necessarily any developing "behavior problems."
Yet in situations with autistic people prone to physical outbursts, the end result is that it will be treated like it's reliable, simply to avoid the possibility of property damage or self-injury. This is especially true in institutions, where the person's physical wellbeing is very much secondary to problems they might cause. You might end up with autistic people being straitjacketed or sent back to their rooms simply for reacting with happy excitement to another person or a favorite game or TV show.
My second problem with this idea is this: it can and will stand in for actual communication. One of the researchers said this: "Individuals who are severely affected by autistic spectrum disorders are often unable to verbally communicate their discomfort when they become stressed" (My emphasis added via italics). Verbally communicate. Neurotypical people are so hyperfocused on verbal communication.
There are lots of ways to communicate that you're not doing well, including pointing to a face on a chart, using an app on a tablet, or waving at the relevant caretaker and then making an unhappy face. These methods of communication are all the more important when it comes to nonspeaking autistic people, and paying attention to them is mandatory. But it seems some people would rather wait for a voice from heaven to tell them, verbally, that something is up rather than simply using their eyes or teaching how to nonverbally communicate their emotions.
Maybe this technology, instead of being used as an alarm system, could be a teaching tool to help autistic people recognize when they're getting upset. But at least for the moment, that's not the world we live in.
(Pst! If you like seeing the latest autism-relevant research, visit my Twitter, which has links and brief comments on studies that were interesting, but didn't get a whole Reading the Research article about them.)
My worry here is twofold. First, a 60% rate of success is barely better than flipping a coin. A lot of things can make a person sweat, such as "eating spicy food," "being in a room that's too warm," "being sick," and "drinking a cup of coffee." This is not, on the whole, a great indicator of an incoming problem. In particular, this tool wouldn't seem to be terribly useful when a person is exercising. They'd already be sweating from the exertion, which would set it off without there being necessarily any developing "behavior problems."
Yet in situations with autistic people prone to physical outbursts, the end result is that it will be treated like it's reliable, simply to avoid the possibility of property damage or self-injury. This is especially true in institutions, where the person's physical wellbeing is very much secondary to problems they might cause. You might end up with autistic people being straitjacketed or sent back to their rooms simply for reacting with happy excitement to another person or a favorite game or TV show.
My second problem with this idea is this: it can and will stand in for actual communication. One of the researchers said this: "Individuals who are severely affected by autistic spectrum disorders are often unable to verbally communicate their discomfort when they become stressed" (My emphasis added via italics). Verbally communicate. Neurotypical people are so hyperfocused on verbal communication.
There are lots of ways to communicate that you're not doing well, including pointing to a face on a chart, using an app on a tablet, or waving at the relevant caretaker and then making an unhappy face. These methods of communication are all the more important when it comes to nonspeaking autistic people, and paying attention to them is mandatory. But it seems some people would rather wait for a voice from heaven to tell them, verbally, that something is up rather than simply using their eyes or teaching how to nonverbally communicate their emotions.
Maybe this technology, instead of being used as an alarm system, could be a teaching tool to help autistic people recognize when they're getting upset. But at least for the moment, that's not the world we live in.
(Pst! If you like seeing the latest autism-relevant research, visit my Twitter, which has links and brief comments on studies that were interesting, but didn't get a whole Reading the Research article about them.)
No comments:
Post a Comment