Liv MaceIn our recent discussion in neuroscience, we discussed the social and professional implications of late autism diagnoses. We read a systematic review by Russell et al. (2025), which revealed that the definition of a “late" diagnosis proved remarkably inconsistent across research literature, with studies presenting age ranges from 3 to 18 years. We think this was due to the paper’s consideration for inclusive samples. The average age of diagnosis across all the studies mentioned in the paper was 11.5, which surprised some of us as we had assumed most would have been diagnosed shortly after entering elementary school at the latest. We looked at the significance of diagnostic timing, and we agree that early intervention can optimize brain development and support if sought out early enough by the age of 3.
We also explored the value of late diagnosis by recognizing they offer more than just clinical categorization. While an early diagnosis is preferred, for many individuals a later diagnosis still provides crucial validation, explaining lifelong experiences of differentness. A diagnosis at any stage offers a framework for understanding their own personal experiences. Late diagnoses can also be valuable for individuals to afford healthcare since a diagnosis is necessary for treatment and interventions. Additionally, the emerging trend of self-diagnosis, which we believe has been amplified through social media platforms and an abundance of time available to people during COVID-19, brought a shift in our discussion. We talked about the delicate balance between respecting individual experiences while also maintaining scientific integrity. We do believe that self-identification can provide meaningful personal insights, but it can also present challenges for standardized research methodologies that require precise diagnostic criteria. Lastly, we discussed the outcome of self-diagnoses compared to traditional diagnoses and how this can contribute towards stereotypes. Ultimately, diagnoses need to be based on the DSM5 to uphold scientific integrity. We agree that diagnoses, especially in autism spectrum disorder, is not a simple process of checking diagnostic boxes but an exploration of individual experiences best guided by the help of a licensed professional. The process of diagnosing autism is complex, and our discussion this week aimed to acknowledge this to better understand and communicate with individuals who participate in our studies. Russell, A. S., McFayden, T. C., McAllister, M., Liles, K., Bittner, S., Strang, J. F., & Harrop, C. (2025). Who, when, where, and why: A systematic review of “late
0 Comments
Author: Maggie JohnsonBecause it avoids the in-person cues that make social interaction difficult, social media has become a tool for many autistic individuals, offering a space to form relationships in ways that feel more natural and accessible. Unlike in-person interactions, online communication removes challenges like eye contact and physical processing, making it easier to engage. In the article we discussed, (Using social media to be ‘social’: Perceptions of social media benefits and risk by autistic young people, and parents) one adolescent shared, “It helps you build friendships with individuals around the world,” while another noted that it feels “not as personal, more free to speak out.” Many autistic individuals in the study preferred online spaces or video games for socializing opposed to in-person, as they reduce sensory overload and allow for more controlled interactions. With this, we found value in the use of social media for autistic adolescents to be able to strengthen and build social relationships.
Beyond social media, we mentioned some alternative formats to support autistic individuals in developing social skills. We discussed some of the initiatives we have seen, which involved robots that guided interactions and augmented reality that simulating es real conversations. These sought to provide safe, structured environments for communication practice for autistic adolescents. Some of our team questioned whether online interactions should be seen as a complement rather than a supplement for face-to-face engagement. This brought up the idea that we may be able to use this online socialization as a scaffold for more productive in-person opportunities, like playing Roblox with friends in the same physical space instead of playing solely online. We additionally analyzed discussed how online and in-person interactions operate under different social rules. While digital spaces provide vital opportunities for autistic individuals to connect, they don’t always translate seamlessly to real-world relationships. The goal may not be to replace one with the other but to find ways to integrate both, ensuring that autistic individuals have access to meaningful, enjoyable social experiences—online and offline. |
AuthorB-RAD Lab Members all contribute to our articles. Archives
March 2025
Categories
All
|