The findings showed considerable variation in both the type and intensity of sensory experiences reported by participants. 96% of the sample identified sensory reactivity differences, with 93.3% reporting sensory hyperreactivity, 41.4% sensory-seeking behaviour, and 28.6% hyporeactivity. Importantly, these experiences could also overlap; the most common combination was sensory seeking alongside hyperreactivity, reported by 44.9% of participants.
The differences were also visible within particular sensory experiences. 87.5% reported hyperreactivity to loud noises, 82.5% to multiple conversations and 70% to public-transport sounds, all of which feel particularly relevant to the airport environment. However, the study also found that sensory response was strongly influenced by personal preference. Things such as music, colors and patterns, textures, pressure, tastes and smells could be experienced as unpleasant by some participants but actively sought out by others. The authors specifically describe sensory reactivity as individualistic and contextual rather than uniform across adults with autism.
Another finding that feels particularly important to my project was control. Participants reported that unpredictable sensory input could be more difficult to tolerate, while having control over the intensity of an input could change whether it was experienced as enjoyable or aversive. The study also found that sensory tolerance could change depending on somebody’s current state: stress, tiredness, mood and energy could all influence how difficult the same sensory input became.
Participants described a wide range of ways of managing this. Some avoided or escaped difficult environments, while others used headphones, earplugs, sunglasses or personally soothing sensory input. The majority described seeking soothing sensory experiences as a way to regulate when distressed.
To understand whether my emerging problem was actually valid, I first needed stronger evidence that sensory needs differ meaningfully between adults with autism. MacLennan, O’Brien and Tavassoli’s study In Our Own Words: The Complex Sensory Experiences of Autistic Adults was particularly useful because it involved 49 adults and looked not only at sensory hypersensitivity, but also hyporeactivity and sensory-seeking behaviours. The study found complex combinations of sensory responses rather than one common autistic sensory profile. Participants could find particular forms of sensory input overwhelming while actively seeking other types of stimulation, and their ability to tolerate sensory input could also be affected by factors such as stress or tiredness.
One of the most relevant findings for my project was the importance of control and predictability. Participants described unexpected sensory input as particularly difficult, while some stimuli became more tolerable or enjoyable when they could control their intensity. This suggests that sensory accessibility cannot simply be designed around making everything quieter or less stimulating. What one person needs to reduce, may be something another person actively seeks, and the amount or type of stimulation somebody can tolerate may also change depending on the situation.
This provides much stronger support for my emerging phrase “One solution. Different levels of need.” It suggests that the problem with a shared sensory environment is not simply that it might be badly designed. There may be a more fundamental limitation in trying to create a single predetermined sensory condition for a group of people whose sensory experiences are highly individual.
I now have evidence that individualisation is not simply a desirable extra. Different sensory profiles can require genuinely different forms and levels of sensory support.