Skip to main content
Download PDF

Enhanced motor noise in an autism subtype with poor motor skills

Molecular Autism volume 15, Article number: 36 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Motor difficulties are common in many, but not all, autistic individuals. These difficulties can co-occur with other problems, such as delays in language, intellectual, and adaptive functioning. Biological mechanisms underpinning such difficulties are less well understood. Poor motor skills tend to be more common in individuals carrying highly penetrant rare genetic mutations. Such mechanisms may have downstream consequences of altering neurophysiological excitation-inhibition balance and lead to enhanced behavioral motor noise.

Methods

This study combined publicly available and in-house datasets of autistic (n = 156), typically-developing (TD, n = 149), and developmental coordination disorder (DCD, n = 23) children (age 3–16 years). Autism motor subtypes were identified based on patterns of motor abilities measured from the Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2nd edition. Stability-based relative clustering validation was used to identify autism motor subtypes and evaluate generalization accuracy in held-out data. Autism motor subtypes were tested for differences in motor noise, operationalized as the degree of dissimilarity between repeated motor kinematic trajectories recorded during a simple reach-to-drop task.

Results

Relatively ‘high’ (n = 87) versus ‘low’ (n = 69) autism motor subtypes could be detected and which generalize with 89% accuracy in held-out data. The relatively ‘low’ subtype was lower in general intellectual ability and older at age of independent walking, but did not differ in age at first words or autistic traits or symptomatology. Motor noise was considerably higher in the ‘low’ subtype compared to ‘high’ (Cohen’s d = 0.77) or TD children (Cohen’s d = 0.85), but similar between autism ‘high’ and TD children (Cohen’s d = 0.08). Enhanced motor noise in the ‘low’ subtype was also most pronounced during the feedforward phase of reaching actions.

Limitations

The sample size of this work is limited. Future work in larger samples along with independent replication is important. Motor noise was measured only on one specific motor task. Thus, a more comprehensive assessment of motor noise on many other motor tasks is needed.

Conclusions

Autism can be split into at least two discrete motor subtypes that are characterized by differing levels of motor noise. This suggests that autism motor subtypes may be underpinned by different biological mechanisms.

Background

The core of the autism phenotype is centered around early developmental difficulties in the domains of social-communication (SC) and restricted repetitive behavior (RRB). Despite the core SC and RRB commonalities, autistic individuals markedly vary in the domain of motor development. It has been estimated that anywhere from 34 to 80% of autistic individuals show some form of motor impairment and/or delay [1,2,3,4,5]. Motor difficulties in autism are often associated with language delay [6,7,8], cognitive impairment [9,10,11], poorer developmental outcomes [12], and reduced life quality [13,14,15]. Because motor difficulties may affect a large percentage of autistic individuals, a recent debate has emerged regarding whether these difficulties should be added to the diagnostic criteria [1, 16,17,18,19]. However, the way in which motor abilities are affected in autism is quite heterogeneous. Motor difficulties range from delays in attaining early motor milestones to severe deficits in motor coordination that hinder daily living and adaptive functioning [14, 20]. Thus, a discussion regarding global motor impairment in autism is not sufficient and may not be helpful in the context of precision medicine and personalized intervention [21, 22]. A characterization of heterogeneous motor profiles in autistic individuals is needed and may help link to other latent profiles that extend into other key domains such as language, intellectual and adaptive functioning.

Understanding motor issues in autism may also be key to honing in on biological mechanisms that affect some autistic individuals. At a genetic level, it is known that individuals with highly penetrant but rare protein truncating de novo mutations associated with autism, also tend to show delays in the acquisition of early motor milestones (e.g., age at walking) [23,24,25,26,27,28]. Many of these rare highly penetrant mutations are known to converge on a final common pathway of dysregulated neurophysiological balance between excitatory and inhibitory (E:I) neuronal signaling in the brain [29, 30]. Synaptic E:I imbalance can attenuate signal-to-noise ratio in neural circuitry and enhance neural noise [31]. The higher level of noise in the brain could be reflected in the higher level of noise in motor circuitry. We hypothesize that a downstream consequence of higher neural noise specifically in the motor circuitry could lead to a behavioral prediction of enhanced motor noise—that is, increased variability when performing the same motor action repeatedly [32]. While variability is a ubiquitous and healthy feature of neuronal circuits [32,33,34], enhanced neural and motor noise has been proposed to be more pronounced on-average in autism [35,36,37,38,39,40,41].

In this work we investigated the hypothesis of whether stratification of autism by clinical motor profiles leads to enhanced precision in parsing apart individuals that may be differentially affected by motor noise. First, we use an unbiased data-driven approach to identify whether there are discrete motor subtypes in autism, using clinical profiles of motor behavior assessed with a standardized test of motor ability—the Movement Assessment Battery for Children—2nd edition (MABC2). Second, we apply subtype labels to motor kinematics data from a simple reach-to-drop motor task (Fig. 1C) [42, 43] and test whether subtypes differ in terms of motor noise. Lastly, we divided the kinematic task into feedback and feedforward components [44] to assess whether motor noise is expressed differently by the subtypes in each segment.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of motor stratification and kinematic data analysis workflow. Panel A shows how IRCCS-MEDEA and NDA datasets are combined and how the initial preprocessing steps are implemented to remove confounding effects of originating study ID, MABC2 module, and sex. Panel B shows the workflow for stability-based relative clustering validation (reval) analyses that aimed to identify the optimal number of clusters (best k) that minimizes normalized stability in independent splits of the data (training and validation) and estimate the generalization accuracy of such optimal (best k) clustering solution. Panel C shows the analysis workflow for how we estimated motor noise from kinematics data acquired during a simple reach-to-drop task from the IRCCS-MEDEA dataset. Within this task, 10 repeat trials were administered and we used multivariate dynamic time warping (DTW) to align and compare motor kinematic trajectories across repeat trials. Motor noise is operationalized as the median similarity across trials (DTW dist norm) whereby higher estimates are indicative of more motor noise (i.e., increased dissimilarity between repeat trials). Panel D indicates the final step of hypothesis testing for subtype differences in motor noise

Full size image

Methods

NDA dataset

For the purposes of building a motor stratification model of autism, in March 2020 we downloaded all publicly available data from the National Institute of Mental Health Data Archive (NDA; https://nda.nih.gov) that included autistic (n = 62; n = 12 female), typically-developing (TD; n = 56; n = 12 female), or developmental coordination disorder (DCD; n = 23; n = 9 female) children aged 8–16 years old (mean age = 11.2; SD age = 1.73) whom also had a complete Movement Assessment Battery for Children—2nd Edition (MABC2) [45]. Available data originated from 3 different NDA collections: 2566 n = 38, 2254 n = 88, 2799 n = 15. A fourth data collection (collection ID = 2093) was identified yet excluded for the unusual data distribution (i.e., most of the individuals included had a score at the lower end of the MABC2 total score scale). NDA MABC2 data were then filtered to only include individuals between 3 and 16 years of age. Duplicate data were identified and dropped. Finally, if more than one MABC2 subscale domain was missing, the subject was dropped from the analysis. Global unique identifiers and collection IDs for all data utilized from NDA are reported in Supplementary Table 1.

IRCCS-MEDEA dataset

In addition to data from NDA, we also compiled an in-house dataset which used the MABC2. The in-house dataset consisted of n = 94 (n = 17 female) autistic and n = 93 (n = 23 female) typically-developing (TD) children aged 3–12 years old (mean age = 7.34; SD age = 2.4), recruited at the Scientific Institute IRCCS Eugenio Medea (IRCCS-MEDEA) in Italy [46]. The autistic individuals had been recruited while undergoing either a clinical assessment (diagnostic or follow-up) or comprehensive rehabilitation program at the Child Psychopathology Unit of IRCCS-MEDEA, where all the testing occurred. The experimental procedure included the administration of the MABC2 [45] and the performance of 10 trials of a reach-to-drop motor task [42, 43, 46] while kinematic data were recorded with an optoelectronic system. Moreover, additional information was retrieved from each autistic individual's closest clinical record. They included information about: early development (i.e. the age at independent walk and the age of the first words), intellectual abilities (tested with the Griffith Mental Developmental Scales—3rd Edition (GMDS-3) [47], the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—III (WPPSI-III) [48], the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) 3rd and 4th edition [49, 50]) and autism core symptoms severity (using the Calibrated Severity Score (CSS), for the Total, the Social Affect (SA) and the Restricted and Repetitive Behavior (RRB) domains of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scales- 2nd edition (ADOS-2) [51] and the Social Responsiveness Scales—SRS [52]). Supplementary Table 2A provides a description of the sample size for each of the investigated features.

To evaluate our second aim of whether motor noise was enhanced specifically within an autism motor subtype, we utilized kinematics data recorded using an optoelectronic system while children performed 10 repetitions of a simple upper-limb reach-to-drop motor task [42, 43]. Twenty-four autistic individuals and 14 typically developing did not complete all the 10 trials of the task and thus were excluded from the analysis.

Movement Assessment Battery for Children—2nd edition (MABC2)

To assess motor profiles in young children we used the MABC2 [45]. MABC2 is a gold standard clinical test for the diagnosis of DCD in children aged 3 to 16 years old. However, it can be useful in assessing motor proficiency in a variety of developmental conditions, and it has been extensively used in the autistic population [3, 46, 53]. The MABC2 is composed of 3 subscales investigating specific aspects of motor coordination: the Manual Dexterity (MD) subscale, which refers to fine-motor coordination tasks; the Aiming and Catching (AC) subscale that includes oculo-motor activities; and the Balance (BL) subscale that tests both static and dynamic balance abilities. To cover a wide age range, the MABC2 is divided into 3 age bands (referred to hereafter as modules - module 1: 3–6 years; module 2: 7–10 years, module 3: 11–16 years) that assess the very same skills using age-appropriate tasks and activities. The advantages of using the MABC2 in autism is that the task’s instructions include a practical demonstration that can be followed by non-verbal autistic individuals. Furthermore, MABC2 is known to have high internal consistency (0.90) and excellent test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97) in a DCD sample [54].

Kinematic task—data acquisition and preprocessing

Motor kinematic data was collected during a simple reach-to-drop task previously described by Forti et al. [43] and Crippa et al. [42]. Kinematic data were collected at IRCSS-MEDEA. Each trial started with the child’s hand resting in a set position at a distance equal to 80% of each child’s forearm length from the ball support. The child was asked to complete 2 subsequential movements: (1) grasp a rubber ball (6-cm diameter), placed over a small support, and (2) drop it in a plastic “castle” with a 7 cm diameter hole on the top. The “castle” was a see-through square box (21 cm high and 20 cm wide) large enough not to require fine movements while dropping the ball. Task instructions were provided by a practical demonstration with no verbal cues so that non-verbal and minimally verbal autistic individuals could take part in the experiment. The same experimenter was present for all sessions in order to avoid any possible confounds due to the practical demonstration. Practice trials, the number of which varied according to each individual, were given to participants before recording in order to verify the child’s understanding of the task. The participants were allowed to interrupt the experiment at will in order to rest.

Each movement was recorded using an optoelectronic system (the SMART D from BTS Bioengineering—Garbagnate Milanese, Italy). Three-dimensional kinematic data was collected by eight infrared-motion analysis cameras at 60 Hz (spatial accuracy: 0.2 mm), located four per side at 2.5 m away from the participants. Passive markers (1 cm) were attached to the elbow, ulnar and radial surfaces of the participants’ wrists and to the hand dorsum on the fourth and fifth metacarpals (Fig. 1C). This resulted in a total of four body parts for kinematic trajectories to be recorded from. Subsequently, a dedicated software system (Smart Tracker, BTS Bioengineering—Garbagnate Milanese, Italy) was used to track and reconstruct the acquired movement by naming each single moving point recorded by the cameras in each time-frame. This allowed for frame-wise definition of a movement trajectory in 3-dimensional space coordinates (x, y, z). Data were then preprocessed in MATLAB (Mathworks—Natick, MA, USA) using a fifth-order Butterworth (8-Hz) low-pass filter. Although the task was presented to all children, 24 autistic and 14 TD children did not complete all 10 trials of the task, or chose to change hand (e.g., from left to right) during the task and were removed from the analysis. The final analysis was undertaken on n = 70 autistic and n = 79 TD individuals.

Dataset combination and batch correction

For our first aim to stratify autism by MABC2 profiles, we first combined the IRCCS-MEDEA and NDA datasets to get the largest possible sample size for the stratification analysis. The final sample size was n = 328 individuals, aged 3 to 16 years old, split into n = 156 autistic (n = 29 females), n = 23 DCD (n = 9 females) and n = 149 TD (n = 35 females) children (Supplementary Table 2A–B). Because data originated from multiple sites (e.g., IRCCS-MEDEA and 3 other NDA datasets), we first implemented a batch correction technique to control for the variance attributed to factors that might introduce some systematic biases in the following analysis, such the originating study ID, the MABC2 module used and sex of participant (Fig. 1A). This batch correction was implemented as a linear model with each MABC2 subscale or total standardized score as the dependent variable and the originating study ID, MABC2 module, sex, and diagnosis as independent variables. Beta coefficients for originating study ID, MABC2 module and sex were used to project out variance related to those features before any further downstream statistical analysis. For the subsequent stratification model analysis, only the autistic subjects were utilized. For full reproducible analyses of all results presented in this work, please see https://github.com/IIT-LAND/motor_stratification_paper.

Stability-based relative clustering validation analysis (reval)

To identify robust, stable, and reproducible subtypes based on motor profiles from the MABC2, we used a stability-based relative clustering validation approach called reval (https://github.com/IIT-LAND/reval_clustering) [55]. Practically, reval takes as input independent training and validation sets and selects the optimal number of clusters by looping across a range of possible clusters solutions (k = range[2:10]). For each clustering solution reval applies a repeated n cross-validation scheme that partions the training set repeatedly into the internal-training and internal-testing sets and then implements a clustering algorithm on each. A classifier is then fit to the internal-training set and is used to predict the clusters labels of the internal-testing set, which then allows for obtaining a performance metric - the misclassification error. reval uses the average of the misclassification error obtained across the n cross-validation repetitions for each of the possible k to select the optimal k, defined as the one having the lowest normalized stability (i.e., a measure that combines the classifier’s misclassification error with the misclassification after random labeling). The general idea is that the optimal cluster solution in terms of the number of clusters (k) is the most reproducible, hence a classifier trained on a first independent set (interval-training set) should be able to accurately classify the observation of another independent set (internal- testing set) resulting in higher classification accuracy and a lower misclassification error. Once the optimal k has been identified, reval applies that k as the number of clusters to identify in the held-out test set. It then trains a classifier on the original training set and uses it to predict the held-out test set labels. This classifier accuracy is called generalization accuracy and it is a performance metric that allows for interpreting if the clustering solution is thoroughly reproducible in independent datasets. For more details about reval please refers to our prior published work [55].

With respect to this work, preprocessed MABC2 data from autistic individuals was used as input for the reval analysis. A total of n = 156 autistic individuals were first split into train and validation sets using a 70–30 split scheme, while also balancing for originating study ID, sex, and MABC2 module. Before being entered as input features for reval, the three MABC2 subscales were scaled to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 (sklearn.preprocessing.StandardScaler) and then transformed using Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) (n_neighbors = 30, min_dist = 0.0, n_components = 2, random_state = 42, metric = Euclidean). Those steps were done by fitting the models on the train set and applying them to both train and validation sets. Clustering and classification models were fit using k-means clustering and k-nearest neighbor classifier algorithms from the python scikit-learn library. To identify the optimal number of clusters via minimizing normalized stability, we used a twofold cross-validation scheme on the train dataset and searched through cluster solutions 2 through 10. The cross-validation scheme was repeated 100 times to ensure robustness. The identified optimal number of clusters was then used for clustering on the validation set. A classifier was then trained on the train set and utilized to predict the labels on the validation set to test the reproducibility of the cluster solution in a held-out sample. The accuracy of the classifier on the validation set is called generalization accuracy and describes how well the classification model fit to the train dataset can identify similar labels in the independent validation set (Fig. 1B). While stability-based relative clustering validation in reval tells us about the stability of clustering solutions, it does not test whether the actual solution is indicative of true clusters. Therefore, we followed up on the reval analysis by using the sigclust library in R to test whether the observed clustering solution significantly differs from the null hypothesis that the data originates from a single multivariate Gaussian distribution [56].

Testing subtypes for differences in non-motor domains

Autism motor subtypes were examined for a number of phenotypic differences such as autism symptom severity, autistic traits, intelligence, and age at acquisition of developmental milestones such as walking and first words. For this analysis, only individuals from the IRCCS-MEDEA dataset were analyzed, since this was the only dataset that had presence of variables measuring these features. To measure intelligence, we utilized combined standardized scores (mean 100, SD = 15) across measures such as the GMDS-3 [57], WPPSI-III, and WISC 3rd and 4th edition [49, 50]. Autism symptom severity was measured with ADOS-2 SA and RRB calibrated severity scores (CSS) [51]. Autistic traits were measured with the SRS [52]. Age at achievement of early developmental milestones (i.e., age at independent walking, age at first words) were retrieved from clinical history data collected by clinicians during initial examination. Those measures were available for a portion of the entire IRCCS-MEDEA sample, hence the sample size for each hypothesis test changes accordingly (see Supplementary Table 2A). Hypothesis tests were conducted via Welch two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests when data significantly deviated from a Gaussian distribution (Supplementary Table 3A).

Motor kinematic analyses

Motor noise was assessed via analysis of kinematic data from a simple reach-to-drop task from the IRCCS-MEDEA dataset. Here we defined motor noise as the degree of variability in movement trajectories between repeated trials on this task [32, 58]. To estimate variability between the 10 repeat trials of the task, we utilized multivariate dynamic time warping (DTW) implemented with the dtw function in the dtw library in R (distance metric: Euclidean, step pattern: Symmetric2, begin and end: close). For each individual, DTW resulted in a 10 × 10 similarity matrix. We defined motor noise as the median distance between trials, computed as the median in this 10 × 10 DTW similarity matrix. Larger values on this measure indicate higher levels of motor noise due to higher dissimilarity in movement trajectories between the 10 repeated trials (Fig. 1C). Given that the movements were already segmented so that data for each trial started and ended with the starting and ending of the movement, the DTW algorithm was forced to match the first and the last timeframe while comparing trials. Moreover, to avoid any bias given by the velocity in performing the movement, the normalized distance output was used for the subsequent analysis which represents the difference in the trajectories normalized by the total duration of the movement. Hypothesis tests for group differences in motor noise (e.g., DTW normalized distance) were examined with ANOVA and post hoc Welch two-sample t-tests.

Examining motor noise during feedforward and feedback phases of reaching

It is well known in the literature that reaching actions can be characterized by two phases [44, 59,60,61,62,63,64]: (1) a first feedforward phase defined by the first deceleration peak after the max peak velocity, and (2) a subsequent feedback phase preceding the grasping of the object (Fig. 4A). These phases are thought to be underpinned by distinct neurocomputational mechanisms and thus are important to separate and examine for differences between autism motor subtypes. Therefore, in addition to examining motor noise for the entire reach-to-drop action, we also examined motor noise for these specific phases of the reach action. All of the same methods used to estimate motor noise with multivariate dynamic time warping were used in these analyses. The primary difference is that the movement trajectories were segmented into feedforward and feedback phases via identifying the first deceleration peak (DP) after the max velocity peak for the reaching action. The feedforward segment starts from the beginning of the reaching phase of the task up until the first deceleration peak, while the feedback phase starts with the first deceleration peak and ends with the reaching (Fig. 4A). Because the two phases of the reach action can be thought of as a within-subject factor, we modeled between-group differences as potential group*phase interactions within a linear mixed effect model that treated group and phase as fixed effects and modeled random intercepts grouped by subject ID. For n = 6 autistic individuals and n = 6 typically developing children we could not identify the 1st peak of deceleration after the 1st peak of velocity, hence the segmentation was not possible and they were dropped for this analysis step.

Results

Identification of autism motor subtypes with data-driven clustering

The primary goal of this work was to examine how motor behavior in autism may vary and to test whether there are distinct autism motor subtypes. Notably, the variability in motor performance within the autistic population is substantial, ranging from severely impaired to within the normative range (Fig. 2A). Before digging into analyses that explore this heterogeneity, it is crucial to first describe how autism can be characterized through a case–control comparison involving both a typically developing (TD) group and a non-autistic comparison group with specific motor impairments, such as Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD). To achieve this goal, we first compiled publicly available data from NDA with our own in-house dataset (IRCCS-MEDEA) that utilize MABC2 (autism n = 156, DCD n = 23, TD n = 93; Fig. 1A; Supplementary Table 2A–B). Large group differences are apparent in MABC2 total standardized score (F = 148, p = 2.01e−46), which can be described as lower scores in autism compared to TD (t = − 16.37, p = 1.42e−43, Cohen’s d = 1.87), but no case–control differences when autism is compared to DCD (t = 0.29, p = 0.77, Cohen’s d = 0.05) (Fig. 2A).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Autism motor subtypes. Panel A plots the MABC2 total standardized score for typically-developing (TD; yellow-orange), autistic (blue), and Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD; maroon) individuals. The horizontal solid black and red lines represent cutoffs for ‘at risk of having a motor impairment’ (solid black line) and ‘have a motor impairment’ (solid red line) according to the MABC2 manual. With stability-based relative clustering validation (reval) analyses, the optimal clustering solution identified was k = 2, indicating two subtypes that could be identified with 89% accuracy in independent data. The two subtypes (Autism High, light blue; Autism Low, dark blue) are described with respect to total MABC2 score, and the MD, AC, and BL subscales of the MABC2 in the Training (C) and Validation (D) sets

Full size image

The case–control analyses may indicate that very prominent motor impairments are a key characteristic of autism as a whole. However, before making this interpretation, it is important to analyze whether the autism group could be split into robust, stable, and reproducible subtypes [65, 66]. Evidence supporting the notion that autism can be split into subtypes may help refine the precision of our interpretations about motor skills for specific types of autistic individuals. To test this, we analyzed multivariate clinical motor profiles from the MABC2 for evidence of robust, stable, and reproducible autism subtypes with stability-based relative clustering validation (reval) analysis [55, 67] (Fig. 1B). Our analysis revealed the existence of two autism motor subtypes with high generalization accuracy (89%) in independent data (Fig. 2B). Evidence of cluster separation can be discerned by comparing the data to simulated data originating from a single multivariate Gaussian null distribution. This analysis shows robust evidence of separated clusters that highly deviated from the single multivariate Gaussian null distribution (SigClust p = 9.999e−05) [56]. The subtypes can be described as relatively ‘High’ (56%, N = 87) versus ‘Low’ (44%, N = 69) levels of motor proficiency, with subscales such as MD (Cohen’s d for the training set = 1.55, validation set = 2.18) and BL (Cohen’s d for the training set = 2.06, validation set = 1.73) showing the largest differentiation between the subtypes (Fig. 2C–D), whereas much less differentiation exists between subtypes in the AC subscale (Cohen’s d for the training set = 0.43, validation set = 0.54). Notably, the subtypes are identified with high generalization accuracy without visible evidence of hard cutoffs (Fig. 2C–D). However, it is apparent that when data is plotted with traditional MABC2 cutoffs for motor impairment, the relatively ‘Low’ subtype scores at or below this threshold while the relatively ‘High’ subtype is largely above this cutoff for a majority of individuals (Fig. 2C–D).

With robust and stable subtype labels known, we can re-evaluate our model of group differences considering the autism subtypes along with TD and DCD. Using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) statistic [68], the subtype model better explains variance in the total MABC2 standardized scores (ΔAIC = 137). We can also describe how the ‘Low’ and ‘High’ subtypes compare relative to the TD and DCD comparison groups. The ‘Low’ subtype is more than 3 standard deviations below the TD group (t = − 26.98, p = 4.43e−70, Cohen’s d = 3.22) and is also more impaired than the DCD group, even though the effect size is much less pronounced (t = − 2.99, p = 0.005, Cohen’s d = 0.89). In contrast, the ‘High’ subtype still shows lower on-average scores compared to TD (t = − 11.81, p = 2.19e−25, Cohen’s d = 1.46), but score higher than DCD (t = 4.94, p = 2.69e−5, Cohen’s d = 1.3). This indicates that the overall lack of case–control difference between autism and DCD was driven primarily by the ‘Low’ autism subtype.

We next tested for subtype differences on skills outside of the motor domain. Data for this follow-up analysis were available only for the IRCCS-MEDEA dataset. Subtypes did not significantly differ by age (Wilcoxon Z = 1270, p = 0.2). Regarding other general intellectual ability and achievement of early developmental milestones, we discovered that the relatively ‘Low’ motor skill autism subtype shows significantly lower scores in general intellectual ability (t = 3.3, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.7) and higher age at independent walking (Wilcoxon Z = 417, p = 0.015, Cohen’s d = 0.67). However, no significant difference was apparent for age at first words (Wilcoxon Z = 343.5, p = 0.95). Similarly, no significant differences were apparent for ADOS-2 CSS scores [69] or the SRS [52] (Fig. 3; Supplementary Table 3A).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Characterization of autism motor subtypes by age, general intellectual level, early developmental milestones, and autistic traits and symptom severity. In this figure we describe subtypes (Autism High, light blue; Autism Low, dark blue) in terms of age, general intellectual level, age at acquisition of early developmental milestones (age at independent walking and first words), and autistic trait and symptom severity as measured by the SRS and ADOS-2 respectively. Asterisks indicates p < 0.05

Full size image

Autism motor subtypes are differentiated by motor noise

Thus far, we have demonstrated that autism can be separated into at least two subtypes by clinical motor profiles. The second aim of this work was to test whether such subtypes are highly differentiated in terms of motor noise. To estimate motor noise we analyzed motor kinematics acquired during repetitions of a simple reach-to-drop task (Fig. 1C) [42, 43, 46] from the IRCCS-MEDEA dataset (n = 149, autism High n = 37, autism Low n = 33, TD n = 79). We operationalized motor noise for each subject as the degree of variability between movement trajectories during 10 repeat executions of the task [32]. We used multivariate DTW to estimate the variability. DTW output measures the distance between trial trajectories. Higher DTW (normalized) distance between trajectories indicates more variability and, as a result, higher levels of motor noise. For each individual, we apply DTW in a pair-wise fashion across the 10 trials resulting in a 10 × 10 similarity matrix. We defined motor noise as the median distance between trials, computed as the median in this 10 × 10 DTW similarity matrix. We find highly significant differences between groups in motor noise (F = 8.7, p = 2.5e−4), driven by enhanced motor noise in the relatively ‘Low’ subtype compared to the relatively ‘High’ subtype (t = − 3.2, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d = 0.77) and compared to TD children (t = − 4.1, p = 1.33e−4, Cohen’s d = 0.85). In contrast, there was no difference between the relatively ‘High’ subtype and TD children (t = − 0.4, p = 0.66, Cohen’s d = 0.08) (Fig. 4B). This result reflects poorer precision, and thus higher variability, in repeat executions of the action that is specific to the relatively ‘Low’ subtype. Illustrative examples of this effect can be seen in Fig. 4D, E. It is visually evident that the individual in the ‘High’ subtype shows very similar trajectories for each of the 10 repeated executions. In contrast, the example individual in the ‘Low’ subtype shows much more variable trajectories for each execution.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Enhanced motor noise specific to the poor motor skill autism subtype. Panel A shows the reach-to-drop task, segmented into reach and drop actions, and with the reach action split into feedforward and feedback phases according to the deceleration peak. The velocity plot represents the instantaneous velocity of the medial wrist marker of a random participant. Panel B shows group differences (TD, yellow-orange; Autism High, light blue; Autism Low, dark blue) when motor noise is measured across the entire reach and drop actions. Panel C shows group differences when the task is split into reach and drop actions and with the reach action split into feedforward and feedback phases. Panels D and E show the variability across trials for a randomly selected participant. Trajectories for one body part (lateral wrist) are displayed in their native 3D space (x, y, z). Panel D displays one example subject from the 'High' subtype, whereas Panel E displays an example subject from the 'Low subtype'. Each colored line indicates one trial. Asterisks indicate p < 0.05

Full size image

Enhanced motor noise during the feedforward phase of reaching

The reaching component of our task can be broken down into two functionally separable components—feedforward and feedback phases. The transition between these phases is demarcated by the end-point (i.e., wrist) transport deceleration peak [63]. Therefore, we re-examined motor noise when the data is split into these two phases. Linear mixed effect modeling was able to identify a significant group*phase interaction (F = 3.5, p = 0.03; Supplementary Table 4) which is indicative of group differences in motor noise that are dependent on the phase (feedforward or feedback). Follow-up tests showed that the autism subtypes are highly differentiated during the feedforward phase (t = − 3.56, p = 7e−4, Cohen’s d = 0.87), but were not different during the feedback phase (t = − 1.55, p = 0.12, Cohen’s d = 0.39) (Fig. 4C). Examination of motor noise for the drop action also indicated that the ‘Low’ subtype showed more motor noise than the ‘High’ subtype (t = − 2.05, p = 0.045, Cohen’s d = 0.51) (Fig. 4C). Comparing the autism subtypes to TD children, we observed similar levels motor noise in the relatively ‘High’ subtypes in both feedforward and feedback phase and in the drop action. In contrast, motor noise of the relatively ‘Low’ subtype was always higher with respect to TD children (Supplementary Table 5). Overall, these results demonstrate that enhanced motor noise is a specific characteristic of the relatively ‘Low’ motor skill autism subtype and that this effect could be most pronounced within neural circuitry that supports computations critical for feedforward processing.

Discussion

In this work we aimed to study heterogeneity in motor ability in autism. Past work has indicated that motor issues are a very prominent feature of autism and that it could be potentially important to consider adding this domain to the diagnostic criteria in the future [1, 17]. Congruent with these ideas, if one were to simply use cut-off scores on the MABC2, we would find that a large majority of autistic individuals in our sample (74%) show medium to severe motor impairments, while only 26% possess motor skills in line with age-expected norms. However, this way of analyzing the data does not rigorously test whether autism is indeed a single group or a collection of different motor subtypes. Our work shows first and foremost that when considering motor ability in autism, the data do not conform to a single unitary group. Rather, autism can be split in an unbiased and data-driven manner into two subtypes—relatively ‘High’ versus ‘Low’ groups. These ‘High’ versus ‘Low’ subtype labels are intended as descriptive terms referencing the scores of MABC2 test and are not meant to be interpreted in relation to functioning level of each subtype. While the autism group shows on-average lower standardized scores on the MABC2, this lower level of motor ability is clearly driven by the ‘Low’ subtype, which considerably drives down the overall average score of the autism group. However, even the relatively ‘High’ subtype identified here is still on-average lower than the TD group (Cohen’s d = 1.46). Nevertheless, this relatively ‘High’ group is still higher than a non-autistic group of individuals with very pronounced motor impairments (e.g., the DCD group; Cohen’s d = 1.3). Finally, the percentages of individuals in these two subtypes (Low = 44%; High = 55%) do not easily conform to the percentages seen when one uses standardized cutoff scores on the MABC2 (e.g., 74% vs. 26%). This result illustrates the need to characterize autistic individuals not only by where they stand relative to TD norms, but also with regards to how they are grouped within the autism population [67].

After identifying autism motor subtypes, we next found that the relatively ‘Low’ autism motor subtype could be characterized by enhanced motor noise during a simple reach-to-drop task where fine-grained motor kinematics were measured. Motor noise is defined as the degree of variability in repeat motor actions [32] and is thought to be a downstream consequence of neural noise within motor circuitry [31]. The concept of neural noise can be linked to long-standing ideas in autism research, such as the E:I imbalance theory [29, 30]. It is known that many highly penetrant rare genetic mutations associated with autism also highly dysregulate E:I balance [29, 30] and these types of genetic mutations are often associated with delays in acquiring early motor milestones [23,24,25,26,27,28]. Enhanced motor noise specific to the relatively ‘Low’ autism motor subtype may be revealing of very different neurobiological mechanisms linked to synaptic E:I imbalance in motor circuitry. With regards to how these insights could help drive future work, we suggest that new studies could utilize our motor stratification model to examine how these motor subtypes might be different with respect to biomarkers relevant to E:I imbalance in neuroimaging data [70]. If E:I imbalance is a key neurobiological issue in the ‘Low’ motor subtype, it may be important to utilize our stratification model in clinical trials that target key E:I mechanisms [71,72,73]. Other future work could examine how rare variant or polygenic genomic architecture may affect motor circuitry in a differential manner in phenotypically-defined autism subtypes where motor skills are the central differentiating factor.

While motor noise highly differentiated the subtypes for trajectories analyzed across the entire reach-to-drop task, we also discovered that enhanced motor noise in the ‘Low’ subtype may be most pronounced for the feedforward phase of the initial reach action. This result is consistent with previous studies that provided evidence for alterations in the feedforward-based phase [35, 74, 75]. This result is also important with respect to the hypothesized different neurocomputational mechanisms that underlie feedforward versus feedback motor control. Motor control is based on the integration of feedforward action planning and feedback-based control processes. Feedforward processing derive from internal representations of the action that specify a relatively coarse motor output prior to its initiation, while feedback processes fine-tune the motor output on the fly, relying on sensory feedback and often applying corrective adjustments [76]. Action representations, as well as the neural machinery required to adapt them to incoming sensory information, are believed to rely on the cerebellum [77, 78]. Altered cerebellar function during development might play a key role in contributing to both motor and non-motor alterations in autism [79]. Altered feedforward and feedback mechanisms are also associated with the severity of communication impairments in autism and could potentially reflect the respective contributions of the anterior and posterior cerebellum [80]. Reduced motor noise during the feedforward phase for the ‘High’ autism motor subtype suggests that this subgroup, rather than having better feedback-based correction abilities, are characterized by relatively more preserved representation of actions.

In contrast to the sharp differences between autism motor subtypes in terms of general intellectual ability, acquisition of early motor milestones, and motor noise, these subtypes were not highly differentiated in terms of age, autistic traits, or autism symptom severity. This lack of differentiation in autistic traits and core autism symptom severity is important because it potentially underscores the orthogonal nature of motor versus core diagnostic features of autism (e.g., SC and RRB domains). An emerging literature is building indicating that the single diagnostic label of autism is not enough for understanding clinical and biologically important features within autistic individuals [66, 81]. Rather than looking to core SC and RRB features, it seems that a constellation of related features that do not represent the core features of autism—such as motor, language, intellectual, and adaptive functioning—may better separate out important clinical and biological distinctions within the autism population. Supporting this statement, there is evidence showing that motor difficulties in autism tend to highly co-occur with language delay [6,7,8], cognitive impairment [9,10,11], poorer developmental outcomes [12], and reduced life quality [13, 15]. While in this specific work we did not find a significance difference in terms of age at first words, other work reports that individuals with very poor early language outcome tend to also have extensive issues in motor, non-verbal cognitive ability, and adaptive functioning, and also have very different structural and functional neural mechanisms underpinning their difficulties [82,83,84,85]. A theoretical advance forward for the field would be to put together these findings under a model that supports the fact that a primary split in the autism population should be between individuals with very pronounced issues in this constellation of non-core features in motor, language, intellectual, and adaptive functioning. We have proposed such a theory and have provided initial evidence in support of this subtyping model [67]. The current work matches the predictions of our model and provides further empirical support for it. Furthermore, although this work cannot be directly translated into clinical practice, it may have some future clinical implications. The stratification of autism into motor-defined subtypes might help identify autistic individuals who require specialized intervention programs to improve their motor development. In this regard, we also suggest that our operationalization of motor noise might be a possible behavioral measure of motor intervention efficacy.

Limitations

Several limitations and caveats must be noted for this work. First, while our goal was to examine the largest sample size available via combining all available MABC2 data from NDA and our in-house dataset (IRCCS-MEDEA), it may be that a larger sample size is needed to make stronger generalizations and cover the entire autism spectrum. Second, the MABC2 has been psychometrically evaluated with respect to DCD populations, but not in autism. A similar psychometric evaluation of MABC2 in the autism population is necessary for future work. Third, a more comprehensive assessment of motor noise could be achieved with kinematics data across a variety of different motor tasks (e.g., gait, jumping, pointing, clapping) to test the generalizability of the operationalization of motor noise as kinematic variability across repeated trials of the same task. Fourth, the analysis of differences in intellectual abilities between subtypes relies solely on composite IQ scores. However, due to the variability among IQ subscales, further investigation is required to elucidate the influence of each index and to examine potential differences between subtypes. Lastly, genetic and electrophysiological data was not available for the datasets analyzed in the current work. Thus, discussion about genomic mechanisms that potentially lead to E:I imbalance is speculation for future work to test.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we have shown evidence that autism can be split into two subtypes based on clinical motor profiles measured by the MABC2. These subtypes show other differences in general intellectual ability, acquisition of early motor milestones, and motor noise. However, motor-defined subtypes are not different with regards to autistic symptomatology. Our findings fit with general findings that autism can be stratified into robust/stable and discrete subtypes. Such motor subtypes may be very relevant within the bigger picture of autism subtypes that share issues across language, intellectual, and adaptive functioning, but are likely orthogonal to issues within the core autism domains of SC and RRB.

Data availability

NDA data utilized in this work can be found in the National Institute of Mental Health Data Archive (NDA; https://nda.nih.gov). NDA global unique identifiers (GUID) and collection IDs are provided in Supplementary Table 1. IRCCS-MEDEA data can be made available upon reasonable request.

Code availability

Analysis code to reproduce the analyses and figures is available on GitHub (https://github.com/IIT-LAND/motor_stratification_paper). The reval Python library can be found on GitHub (https://github.com/IIT-LAND/reval_clustering) and the documentation at https://reval.readthedocs.io.

Abbreviations

TD:

Typically-developing

DCD:

Developmental coordination disorder

MABC2:

Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2nd edition

SC:

Social-communication

RRB:

Restricted repetitive behaviors

E:I:

Excitation-inhibition

NDA:

National Institute of Mental Health Data Archive

IRCCS-MEDEA:

Scientific Institute IRCCS Eugenio Medea

GMDS-3:

Griffith Mental Developmental Scales, 3rd edition

WPPSI-III:

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-III

WISC:

Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children

ADOS-2:

Autism Diagnostic Observation Scales-2nd edition (ADOS-2)

CSS:

ADOS-2 Calibrated Severity Score

SA:

Social affect

SRS:

Social Responsiveness Scale

MD:

Manual dexterity subscale of the MABC2

AC:

Aiming and catching subscale of the MABC2

BL:

Balance subscale of the MABC2

reval :

Stability-based relative clustering validation

UMAP:

Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection

DTW:

Dynamic time warping

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

DP:

Deceleration peak

GUID:

Global unique identifier

AIC:

Akaike information criterion

References

  1. Bhat AN. Motor impairment increases in children with autism spectrum disorder as a function of social communication, cognitive and functional impairment, repetitive behavior severity, and comorbid diagnoses: a SPARK study report. Autism Res. 2021;14(1):202–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Emanuele M, Nazzaro G, Marini M, Veronesi C, Boni S, Polletta G, et al. Motor synergies: evidence for a novel motor signature in autism spectrum disorder. Cognition. 2021;1(213):104652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Green D, Charman T, Pickles A, Chandler S, Loucas T, Simonoff E, et al. Impairment in movement skills of children with autistic spectrum disorders. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2009;51(4):311–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Licari MK, Alvares GA, Varcin K, Evans KL, Cleary D, Reid SL, et al. Prevalence of motor difficulties in autism spectrum disorder: analysis of a population-based cohort. Autism Res. 2020;13(2):298–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang LAL, Petrulla V, Zampella CJ, Waller R, Schultz RT. Gross motor impairment and its relation to social skills in autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and two meta-analyses. Psychol Bull. 2022;148(3–4):273.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bedford R, Pickles A, Lord C. Early gross motor skills predict the subsequent development of language in children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Res. 2016;9(9):993–1001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi B, Leech KA, Tager-Flusberg H, Nelson CA. Development of fine motor skills is associated with expressive language outcomes in infants at high and low risk for autism spectrum disorder. J Neurodev Disord. 2018;10(1):14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. LeBarton ES, Landa RJ. Infant motor skill predicts later expressive language and autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. Infant Behav Dev. 2019;54:37–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Craig F, Lorenzo A, Lucarelli E, Russo L, Fanizza I, Trabacca A. Motor competency and social communication skills in preschool children with autism spectrum disorder: motor and social skills in autism. Autism Res. 2018;11(6):893–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Craig F, Crippa A, Ruggiero M, Rizzato V, Russo L, Fanizza I, et al. Characterization of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) subtypes based on the relationship between motor skills and social communication abilities. Hum Mov Sci. 2021;1(77):102802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ramos-Sánchez CP, Kortekaas D, Van Biesen D, Vancampfort D, Van Damme T. The relationship between motor skills and intelligence in children with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2022;52(3):1189–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Peyre H, Peries M, Madieu E, David A, Picot MC, Pickles A, et al. Association of difficulties in motor skills with longitudinal changes in social skills in children with autism spectrum disorder: findings from the ELENA French Cohort. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-023-02324-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bhat AN. Multidimensional motor performance in children with autism mostly remains stable with age and predicts social communication delay, language delay, functional delay, and repetitive behavior severity after accounting for intellectual disability or cognitive delay: a SPARK dataset analysis. Autism Res. 2023;16(1):208–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fears NE, Palmer SA, Miller HL. Motor skills predict adaptive behavior in autistic children and adolescents. Autism Res. 2022;15(6):1083–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Günal A, Bumin G, Huri M. The effects of motor and cognitive impairments on daily living activities and quality of life in children with autism. J Occup Ther Sch Early Interv. 2019;12(4):444–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Belmonte MK. Motor symptoms in the ASD diagnostic criteria: a conservative perspective. Autism Res. 2022;15(9):1582–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bhat AN. Why add motor to the definition of ASD: a response to Bishop et al.’s critique of Bhat (2021). Autism Res. 2022;15(8):1376–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bishop SL, Wickstrom J, Thurm A. Insufficient evidence for inclusion of motor deficits in the ASD diagnostic criteria: a response to Bhat (2021). Autism Res. 2022;15(8):1374–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Crippa A. Motor abilities as a possible specifier of autism: a response to Bhat (2021). Autism Res. 2022;15(10):1794–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ming X, Brimacombe M, Wagner GC. Prevalence of motor impairment in autism spectrum disorders. Brain Dev. 2007;29(9):565–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Esposito G, Paşca SP. Motor abnormalities as a putative endophenotype for Autism Spectrum Disorders. Front Integr Neurosci. 2013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2013.00043/abstract.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Healy S, Nacario A, Braithwaite RE, Hopper C. The effect of physical activity interventions on youth with autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analysis: physical activity interventions. Autism Res. 2018;11(6):818–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bishop SL, Farmer C, Bal V, Robinson EB, Willsey AJ, Werling DM, et al. Identification of developmental and behavioral markers associated with genetic abnormalities in autism spectrum disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(6):576–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Buja A, Volfovsky N, Krieger AM, Lord C, Lash AE, Wigler M, et al. Damaging de novo mutations diminish motor skills in children on the autism spectrum. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115(8):E1859–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Iossifov I, O’Roak BJ, Sanders SJ, Ronemus M, Krumm N, Levy D, et al. The contribution of de novo coding mutations to autism spectrum disorder. Nature. 2014;515(7526):216–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Satterstrom FK, Kosmicki JA, Wang J, Breen MS, De Rubeis S, An JY, et al. Large-scale exome sequencing study implicates both developmental and functional changes in the neurobiology of autism. Cell. 2020;180(3):568-584.e23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Warrier V, Zhang X, Reed P, Havdahl A, Moore TM, Cliquet F, et al. Genetic correlates of phenotypic heterogeneity in autism. Nat Genet. 2022;54(9):1293–304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wickstrom J, Farmer C, Green Snyder L, Mitz AR, Sanders SJ, Bishop S, et al. Patterns of delay in early gross motor and expressive language milestone attainment in probands with genetic conditions versus idiopathic ASD from SFARI registries. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2021;62(11):1297–307.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Rubenstein JLR, Merzenich MM. Model of autism: increased ratio of excitation/inhibition in key neural systems. Genes Brain Behav. 2003;2(5):255–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sohal VS, Rubenstein JLR. Excitation-inhibition balance as a framework for investigating mechanisms in neuropsychiatric disorders. Mol Psychiatry. 2019;24(9):1248–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Faisal AA, Selen LPJ, Wolpert DM. Noise in the nervous system. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(4):292–303.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Haar S, Donchin O, Dinstein I. Individual movement variability magnitudes are explained by cortical neural variability. J Neurosci. 2017;37(37):9076–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Chaisanguanthum KS, Shen HH, Sabes PN. Motor variability arises from a slow random walk in neural state. J Neurosci. 2014;34(36):12071–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. van Beers RJ, Haggard P, Wolpert DM. The role of execution noise in movement variability. J Neurophysiol. 2004;91(2):1050–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Glazebrook CM, Elliott D, Lyons J. A kinematic analysis of how young adults with and without autism plan and control goal-directed movements. Mot Control. 2006;10(3):244–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Morimoto C, Hida E, Shima K, Okamura H. Temporal processing instability with millisecond accuracy is a cardinal feature of sensorimotor impairments in autism spectrum disorder: analysis using the synchronized finger-tapping task. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018;48(2):351–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Parma V, de Marchena AB. Motor signatures in autism spectrum disorder: the importance of variability. J Neurophysiol. 2016;115(3):1081–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Torres EB, Brincker M, Isenhower RW, Yanovich P, Stigler KA, Nurnberger JI, et al. Autism: the micro-movement perspective. Front Integr Neurosci. 2013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2013.00032/abstract.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Dinstein I, Heeger DJ, Lorenzi L, Minshew NJ, Malach R, Behrmann M. Unreliable evoked responses in autism. Neuron. 2012;75(6):981–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Dinstein I, Heeger DJ, Behrmann M. Neural variability: friend or foe? Trends Cogn Sci. 2015;19(6):322–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Milne E. Increased intra-participant variability in children with autistic spectrum disorders: evidence from single-trial analysis of evoked EEG. Front Psychol. 2011;2:51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Crippa A, Salvatore C, Perego P, Forti S, Nobile M, Molteni M, et al. Use of machine learning to identify children with autism and their motor abnormalities. J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45(7):2146–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Forti S, Valli A, Perego P, Nobile M, Crippa A, Molteni M. Motor planning and control in autism. A kinematic analysis of preschool children. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2011;5:834–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jeannerod M. The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav. 1984;16(3):235–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Henderson SE, Sugden D, Barnett AL. Movement assessment battery for children. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Crippa A, Craig F, Busti Ceccarelli S, Mauri M, Grazioli S, Scionti N, et al. A multimethod approach to assessing motor skills in boys and girls with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Int J Res Pract. 2021;25(5):1481–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Green E, Stroud L, Bloomfield S, Cronje J, Foxcroft C, Hurter K, et al. Griffiths scales of child development (Griffiths III). 3rd ed. Firenze: Hogrefe; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wechsler D. Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence (WIPSI). 3rd ed. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wechsler D. Wechsler intelligence scale for children-III. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wechsler D. Wechsler intelligence scale for children (WISC IV). 4th ed. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hus V, Gotham K, Lord C. Standardizing ADOS domain scores: separating severity of social affect and restricted and repetitive behaviors. J Autism Dev Disord. 2014;44(10):2400–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Costantino JN, Gruber CP. The social responsiveness scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Liu T, Breslin CM. Fine and gross motor performance of the MABC-2 by children with autism spectrum disorder and typically developing children. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2013;7(10):1244–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wuang YP, Su JH, Su CY. Reliability and responsiveness of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition Test in children with developmental coordination disorder. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54(2):160–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Landi I, Mandelli V, Lombardo MV. reval: a Python package to determine best clustering solutions with stability-based relative clustering validation. Patterns. 2021;2(4):100228.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Liu Y, Hayes DN, Nobel A, Marron JS. Statistical significance of clustering for high-dimension, low-sample size data. J Am Stat Assoc. 2008;103(483):1281–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Griffiths R. The abilities of young children. A study in mental measurement. London: University of London Press; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Thies SB, Tresadern PA, Kenney LP, Smith J, Howard D, Goulermas JY, et al. Movement variability in stroke patients and controls performing two upper limb functional tasks: a new assessment methodology. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;23(6):2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Arbib MA. Perceptual structures and distributed motor control. In: Comprehensive physiology. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011. p. 1449–80.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Desmurget M, Grafton S. Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000;4(11):423–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Glover S. Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action. Behav Brain Sci. 2004;27(1):3–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Meyer DE, Abrams RA, Kornblum S, Wright CE, Keith SJ. Optimality in human motor performance: ideal control of rapid aimed movements. Psychol Rev. 1988;95(3):340.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Torricelli F, Tomassini A, Pezzulo G, Pozzo T, Fadiga L, D’Ausilio A. Motor invariants in action execution and perception. Phys Life Rev. 2023;44:13–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Woodworth R. The accuracy of voluntary movement. Psychol Rev Monogr Suppl. 1899;13:77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Lombardo MV, Mandelli V. Rethinking our concepts and assumptions about autism. Front Psychiatry. 2022;3(13):903489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Lombardo MV, Lai MC, Baron-Cohen S. Big data approaches to decomposing heterogeneity across the autism spectrum. Mol Psychiatry. 2019;24(10):1435–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Mandelli V, Landi I, Busuoli EM, Courchesne E, Pierce K, Lombardo MV. Prognostic early snapshot stratification of autism based on adaptive functioning. Nat Ment Health. 2023;1(5):327–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Methods Res. 2004;33(2):261–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lord C, Rutter M, DiLavore PC, Risi S, Gotham K, Bishop SL. Autism diagnostic observation schedule, (ADOS-2), part 1: modules 1–4. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Trakoshis S, Martínez-Cañada P, Rocchi F, Canella C, You W, Chakrabarti B, et al. Intrinsic excitation-inhibition imbalance affects medial prefrontal cortex differently in autistic men versus women. Elife. 2020;4(9):e55684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Huang Q, Pereira AC, Velthuis H, Wong NML, Ellis CL, Ponteduro FM, et al. GABAB receptor modulation of visual sensory processing in adults with and without autism spectrum disorder. Sci Transl Med. 2022;14(626):eabg7859.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Mentch J, Spiegel A, Ricciardi C, Robertson CE. GABAergic inhibition gates perceptual awareness during binocular rivalry. J Neurosci. 2019;39(42):8398–407.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Parellada M, San José Cáceres A, Palmer M, Delorme R, Jones EJH, Parr JR, et al. A phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of arbaclofen administered for the treatment of social function in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: study protocol for AIMS-2-TRIALS-CT1. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:701729.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Campione GC, Piazza C, Villa L, Molteni M. Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of prehension movements in young children with autism spectrum disorder: new insights on motor impairment. J Autism Dev Disord. 2016;46:1985–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Stoit AMB, van Schie HT, Slaats-Willemse DIE, Buitelaar JK. Grasping motor impairments in autism: not action planning but movement execution is deficient. J Autism Dev Disord. 2013;43(12):2793–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Ghez C, Hening W, Gordon J. Organization of voluntary movement. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1991;1:664–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Mostofsky SH, Powell SK, Simmonds DJ, Goldberg MC, Caffo B, Pekar JJ. Decreased connectivity and cerebellar activity in autism during motor task performance. Brain. 2009;132(9):2413–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Rinehart NJ, Tonge BJ, Iansek R, McGinley J, Brereton AV, Enticott PG, et al. Gait function in newly diagnosed children with autism: cerebellar and basal ganglia related motor disorder. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48(10):819–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Wang SSH, Kloth AD, Badura A. The cerebellum, sensitive periods, and autism. Neuron. 2014;83(3):518–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Mosconi MW, Mohanty S, Greene RK, Cook EH, Vaillancourt DE, Sweeney JA. Feedforward and feedback motor control abnormalities implicate cerebellar dysfunctions in autism spectrum disorder. J Neurosci. 2015;35(5):2015–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Lord C, Charman T, Havdahl A, Carbone P, Anagnostou E, Boyd B, et al. The Lancet Commission on the future of care and clinical research in autism. Lancet. 2022;399(10321):271–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Lombardo MV, Pierce K, Eyler LT, Carter Barnes C, Ahrens-Barbeau C, Solso S, et al. Different functional neural substrates for good and poor language outcome in autism. Neuron. 2015;86(2):567–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Lombardo MV, Pramparo T, Gazestani V, Warrier V, Bethlehem RAI, Carter Barnes C, et al. Large-scale associations between the leukocyte transcriptome and BOLD responses to speech differ in autism early language outcome subtypes. Nat Neurosci. 2018;21(12):1680–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Lombardo MV, Eyler L, Pramparo T, Gazestani VH, Hagler DJ, Chen CH, et al. Atypical genomic cortical patterning in autism with poor early language outcome. Sci Adv. 2021;7(36):eabh1663.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Xiao Y, Wen TH, Kupis L, Eyler LT, Goel D, Vaux K, et al. Neural responses to affective speech, including motherese, map onto clinical and social eye tracking profiles in toddlers with ASD. Nat Hum Behav. 2022;6(3):443–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 755816 (AUTISMS) (ERC Starting Grant to MVL) and under the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101087263 (AUTISMS-3D) (ERC Consolidator Grant to MVL). Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Data collection and research from IRCCS-MEDEA has been funded by grants from the Italian Ministry of Health to AC (Ricerca Finalizzata GR-2011-02348929; Ricerca Corrente 2024).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Equal senior author contributions: Alessandro Crippa and Michael V. Lombardo.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy

    Veronica Mandelli

  2. Laboratory for Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Center for Neuroscience and Cognitive Systems, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Rovereto, Italy

    Veronica Mandelli, Isotta Landi & Michael V. Lombardo

  3. Scientific Institute, IRCCS Eugenio Medea, Bosisio Parini, Italy

    Silvia Busti Ceccarelli, Massimo Molteni, Maria Nobile & Alessandro Crippa

  4. Center for Translational Neurophysiology of Speech and Communication, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Ferrara, Italy

    Alessandro D’Ausilio & Luciano Fadiga

  5. Department of Neuroscience and Rehabilitation, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy

    Alessandro D’Ausilio & Luciano Fadiga

Authors
  1. Veronica Mandelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isotta Landi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silvia Busti Ceccarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Massimo Molteni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Nobile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alessandro D’Ausilio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Luciano Fadiga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alessandro Crippa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Michael V. Lombardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: VM, AC, MVL. Methodology: MVL, IL, VM, AC, ADA, LF. Software: IL, VM, MVL. Formal analysis: MVL, VM. Investigation: MVL, VM, SBC, MM, MN, AC. Data curation: MVL, VM, AC. Writing—original draft preparation: MVL, VM, AC, ADA, LF. Writing—review and editing: MVL, VM. Visualization: MVL, VM. Supervision: MVL, AC. Project administration: MVL, AC. Funding acquisition: MVL, AC.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael V. Lombardo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Data from this work is a re-analysis of data that is either publicly available from the National Institute of Mental Health Data Archive (NDA) or in-house data collected by the authors at IRCCS-MEDEA. For the IRCCS-MEDEA dataset re-analysis, data was originally collected with written parental informed consent was obtained for all participants, and the protocol was approved by the Eugenio Medea Scientific Institute's the ethics committee.

Competing interests

MVL is an Associate Editor of Molecular Autism. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mandelli, V., Landi, I., Ceccarelli, S.B. et al. Enhanced motor noise in an autism subtype with poor motor skills. Molecular Autism 15, 36 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-024-00618-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-024-00618-0

Keywords

Molecular Autism

ISSN: 2040-2392