After looking more broadly at variation across the autism spectrum, I realised that simply proving that adults with autism have different sensory profiles was not enough for my project. I needed to understand what those differences actually look like in everyday life, what people find overwhelming or regulating, and how much control over their environment matters.
I therefore read MacLennan, O’Brien and Tavassoli’s (2022) In Our Own Words: The Complex Sensory Experiences of Autistic Adults. The study involved 49 adults with autism and was co-produced with autistic stakeholders. Rather than concentrating only on sensory hypersensitivity, it investigated hyperreactivity, hyporeactivity and sensory seeking across different senses, alongside participants’ own descriptions of how they experience and manage sensory environments.
This paper was much more relevant to my emerging design problem because it demonstrates that sensory experience is not simply a scale from “not very sensitive” to “very sensitive.” People can experience different combinations of hyperreactivity, hyporeactivity and sensory seeking, and these can occur across different senses at the same time. In the study, 96% of participants identified sensory reactivity differences, while 41.4% reported sensory-seeking behaviours. The most common combination was sensory seeking alongside hyperreactivity.
This is important because some of the things one person avoids can be exactly the kind of sensory input another person actively seeks. Participants described being overwhelmed by loud or unexpected sounds, multiple conversations, bright lights, movement and busy environments. At the same time, others actively sought forms of sensory input such as pressure, particular textures, music, temperatures, tastes and smells.
For my project, this begins to explain why one predetermined sensory environment may struggle to meet everybody’s needs. A space designed around reducing stimulation might benefit somebody who needs less sensory input, while another person may regulate through particular sounds, textures, pressure or other sensory experiences.
One of the most useful parts of the paper was that the researchers did not only identify sensory triggers. Their thematic analysis produced four wider themes: Outcomes, Control, Tolerance and Management. The theme of control feels especially significant to my project because control has already appeared repeatedly throughout my earlier research into independence and airport accessibility. The study suggests that sensory experience is influenced not only by what stimulus is present, but by somebody’s ability to predict, manage, avoid or seek that sensory input.
This changes how I think about sensory accessibility. The issue may not simply be whether an airport provides a “quiet” or “sensory” room. The more important question may be how much control the individual has over what they experience once they are inside it.
This paper connects particularly strongly with one response from my own primary research:
“The sunflower lounges are often still quite open and loud and not tailored to autistic people/sensory needs.”
Previously, I understood this mainly as criticism of a particular accessibility space. MacLennan et al. helps me understand the deeper design problem behind it. There may be no single sensory setting that can be described as universally calming, because adults with autism can seek, tolerate and avoid very different forms of sensory input.
It also connects with my own reflection on taking my sister to an autism-friendly cinema screening. The adaptations were intended to make the environment accessible to everybody in the room, yet different people’s regulation needs created additional sensory input that made the experience harder for her. The paper provides academic evidence that helps move this observation beyond personal experience by demonstrating how individual and sometimes contrasting sensory responses can be.
This feels directly relevant to my emerging design problem: how might shared airport accessibility better respond to the individual sensory needs of adults on the autism spectrum travelling independently?
Airport sensory rooms and quiet lounges are still important, and my research is not suggesting that they are ineffective or unnecessary. The issue is that shared physical spaces inevitably have limits on how individually they can respond. Lighting, sound, visual stimulation, other people and the overall environment are still largely predetermined or shared. MacLennan et al. therefore helps strengthen the problem I am beginning to identify: access to a sensory space is not necessarily the same as having control over your sensory environment. That distinction feels particularly important for the next stage of my project.
This paper was considerably more useful than the previous research I had read on general variation across the autism spectrum. Rather than simply confirming that people are different, it helped me understand how those differences can translate into contrasting sensory experiences and coping strategies. Most importantly, it gives stronger evidence behind the phrase I have been developing:
MacLennan, K., O’Brien, S. and Tavassoli, T. (2022). In Our Own Words: The Complex Sensory Experiences of Autistic Adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52, 3061–3075.