|
|
Authors: Addie Rae Allen & Hannah FranksOur inclusion topic this week was centered around the social development of autistic elementary-aged children, specifically regarding connections with neurotypical peers. Exploration of this social development was considered a topic of inclusion because of how peer connection challenges may be gendered, and how more effective social interventions can be developed to incorporate individual differences for both neurotypical and autistic youth. This idea was investigated in Dean et al.’s article, “The peer relationships of girls with ASD at school: comparison to boys and girls with and without ASD” (2014). In this study, the authors analyze autistic and neurotypical children’s relationships with each other in the classroom setting using the Friendship Survey, the responses of which can be used to gather information about social preferences, acceptance, reciprocity, and rejection amongst other relationship qualities. Our lab members discussed how these qualities might be modeled by some of the tasks we conduct in our Autistic Friendships (AF) and Social Connections and Well Being (SCWB) studies, such as with the AF interview, Oddball, and Lunchroom Pics tasks.
Within our meeting, we discussed the significance of the study’s results and the implications they may have both within the B-RAD lab and in broader contexts. While there were little significant differences observed, the authors point to how the general data trends suggest that girls with autism are more socially overlooked while boys with autism have higher susceptibility to overt social rejection. The authors emphasize how these two vehicles of isolation can have different psychological impacts, and our lab discussion focused around how/why these differences in peer treatment between girls and boys with ASD may arise and the implications on subsequent interventions. In terms of girls with ASD being more socially overlooked, lab members highlighted how autism in girls is not as understood as with boys since girls have been historically excluded in autism research. It was brought up how girls with autism may “mask” or socially camouflage more, and how this can be interpreted as being shy and therefore not a salient peer to engage with. In contrast, autism is associated with more overt displays of behavioral differences in boys, which is often also underscored by co-occurring conditions like ADHD; such behavioral differences between autistic and neurotypical boys may be more obvious to children and therefore easier to target, perhaps contributing to the social rejection of the boys with ASD observed in the study. While the described associations between diagnosis and behavior are common characterizations, it is important to keep in mind the diversity of ASD and not apply generalizations to all individuals – more research analyzing the variability in social development that can be observed in adolescents with ASD would help us better understand the results of the study, and is work that the B-RAD is proud to be adding to. Lab members reflected on their own experiences in early childhood education classrooms regarding how neurodivergent peers with more noticeable social differences became the subjects of jokes, and we considered the influence that this treatment can have on a child’s mental health as they develop. We discussed the negative impact that social targeting can have on self-concept as it has the potential to create and/or reinforce negative belief systems about oneself. These belief systems could prevent a child from trying or even wanting to build peer connections out of fear of ostracism – an idea that lab members have described as relating to the social motivation hypothesis, which states that we do intrinsically place value in social acceptance and avoiding rejection (Chevallier et al., 2012). To combat the described harm, we discussed the double empathy problem: a framework that stresses the importance of understanding that the differences in experiences of autistic and neurotypical individuals creates a mutual challenge of empathy, and thus those with ASD should not bear the social burden of accommodation (Milton, 2012). This discussion led us to think about how scaffolding peer connections can be made more effective, especially in the form of interventions used in schools. We agreed on the importance of school staff including both neurotypical and autistic students in their efforts without concentrating interventions solely on autistic students since all children can benefit from pro-social lessons that embrace individual uniqueness and harp on how ways of interacting can be complimentary instead of identical.
0 Comments
Authors: Allie Cobb, Hannah Franks, & Liv MaceThis week, the B-RAD Lab discussed inclusivity in giving haircuts to people with neurodevelopmental disorders and considering similar methods we use in our electroencephalography (EEG) lab. To facilitate discussion, we watched a YouTube short by TheWeightedCape on specialized haircuts for children with autism and read an article titled “Teaching students with autism spectrum disorder to tolerate haircutting” by Buckley et al. Throughout the discussion, we drew connections between the video and article, as well as our own lab practices, and discussed the practicality and ethics surrounding the overlapping methods.
There are methods in the video that we also use in lab sessions. Comfort objects such as fidgets, weighted animals, and occasionally mirrors are shared resources. Mirrors are not always beneficial in EEG sessions as they can cause distress, and it is hard to predict the participant’s reaction to seeing themself in the EEG net. There are also similarities in the techniques used, such as providing breaks, counting down before applying the net or hair trimmer, and describing what we are doing. When looking at our lab, there are techniques used in the video we could implement. To start, allowing the participants to move more freely during the breaks could improve comfortability. Unlike in a haircut, participants are connected via the EEG in sessions, so it is challenging to move around with the net on. A possible solution to this is providing vests or a backpack, so the participants can keep the net on while they move around. This could also save time as we typically remove the net for longer breaks. Additionally, the dimmed lighting in the video sparked discussion since our participant rooms have dimmer switches. The caveat to this technique is the change in environments between participants could potentially be a deviation in data quality. Lastly, the use of soft, comforting voices, similar to the creator in the video, could help our participants feel more at ease. The article uses edible reinforcements to encourage participation, but there is some controversy surrounding this technique. Edible reinforcements can be used in our sessions, but only as a last resort. If needed, we use mini M&Ms to melt in the participant’s mouth since chewing and bigger snacks could interrupt EEG data quality. The downside for this method is possible negative implications with treating food as reward or conditional, but sessions are a low incident experience. It is necessary to emphasize that edible reinforcements can be more beneficial for necessary tasks in life, such as potty training and receiving haircuts. However, it is important to consider the situation and population when deciding to use edible reinforcements. Desensitization is commonly used in our sessions, is the main technique in the article, and is frequently seen throughout the video. The desensitization steps used in our lab attempt to most effectively expose the participant to the EEG. They gradually allow the adolescent to feel comfortable with the EEG, so they can eventually wear it on their head hopefully throughout the whole session. Some of the preparations ahead of time include social stories, letting them see and feel the net, and touching their hair. Additionally, it is important to work with caregivers to gauge the amount of desensitization needed. If necessary, lab personnel and caregivers wear the net to further ease the participants. The use of playful and lighthearted language is also significant to take away any nerves the experience may trigger. The balance between accommodation and scientific validity is strongly considered in this discussion. Most importantly, the participant comes first. It is crucial to ensure that all people are represented in research, so this may mean making a few adjustments. Overall, this topic is an ongoing area of discussion for our lab, and one that we often defer to participants and their caregivers for input about best practices. References Buckley, J., Luiselli, J. K., Harper, J. M., & Shlesinger, A. (2020). Teaching students with autism spectrum disorder to tolerate haircutting. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 53(4), 2081–2089. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.713 Authors: Wae Man Chan, Madeleine Noller, & Liv MaceIn this week’s lab meeting, we discussed the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) as a widely used tool in both academic and everyday settings. The rise has prompted ongoing discussions about AI’s benefits and potential risks. While AI is often framed as a technological advancement that boosts efficiency and productivity, its psychological and developmental implications, particularly for neurodiverse individuals, are still being explored.
The discussion began with Craig Fedreighi’s TED Talk, which emphasizes the growing integration of AI into everyday life, including the potential to shape how we think, work, and interact. Building on this idea, our lab discussion focused on both the opportunities and concerns surrounding AI use, especially for neurodiverse individuals such as those with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). One key takeaway is the positive role AI can play as a form of cognitive “scaffolding”. For individuals who struggle with executive functioning, AI can help organize thoughts, break down complex tasks, and manage overwhelming workloads. In this way, it can help serve as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for cognitive effort. Nonetheless, our discussion also covered several concerns about how AI interacts with users. Unlike human mentors or peers, AI does not inherently challenge or disagree, which can reinforce existing thought patterns. This may be particularly problematic for individuals who struggle with decision making, as AI can provide quick solutions rather than encouraging engagement with more challenging tasks. As discussed in the lab, this “quick fix” dynamic may limit opportunities for deeper learning and cognitive growth, raising concerns about long-term reliance and reduced problem solving skills. Another significant theme that we discussed was the importance of framing AI as a tool that must be used intentionally. Some had compared AI use to other forms of support, such as organizational systems, which assist with functioning but do not replace personal responsibility or goal setting. While AI can help manage tasks and provide structure, it cannot determine an individual’s priorities. Therefore, this led to the general idea that individuals should not rely on AI to tell them how much they can handle or how to structure their lives but to instead use it as a tool among other support systems. Lastly, our discussion emphasized the importance of AI media literacy, particularly among children and adolescents who are growing up with this technology. Without proper guidance, younger users may struggle to develop a strong sense of self and intrinsic motivation. As a result, we highlighted the importance of parental controls, school-based education on AI, and human mentorship. Although AI can offer valuable support, especially for neurodiverse populations, encouraging critical thinking and prioritizing human connection remain essential for healthy cognitive and social development. Authors: Madeleine Noller, Jess Snyder, & Liv MaceDuring this week’s lab meeting, the B-RAD lab discussed the TED Talk, “Why Autism is Often Missed in Women and Girls” by Kate Kahlem, which draws on her personal experiences with autism. This conversation focused on how gender biases in research and society influence the way autism is recognized and diagnosed. More specifically, our discussion highlighted three key themes: the late diagnosis of autism in women, the role of masking, and the broader implications for research and clinical practice.
A key takeaway from both the TED Talk and our discussion was that autism is often diagnosed later in girls due to differences in how it presents. Historically, autism research has focused primarily on boys, which has contributed to a significant gap in recognizing how autistic traits present in girls. Kahle emphasizes that many autistic girls do not display the “classic” behaviors typically associated with autism, which can delay diagnosis. We mentioned that some of these behaviors can include perfectionism or hyper-fixation in one's interests. As a result, many girls go undiagnosed during critical developmental periods which can impact their access to support. The lack of diagnosis is connected to the concept of masking, which helps to explain why these traits often go unnoticed. Masking was one of the most important concepts explored in both the TED Talk and our lab discussion. Kahle describes masking as the process of copying social behaviors to fit into neurotypical expectations. While masking can help individuals navigate social situations, it often comes at a significant cost. Masking requires constant effort and can contribute to anxiety, depression, and a loss of personal identity over time. Our group expanded on this by discussing how prolonged masking, specifically during adolescence, can create additional barriers to self-understanding and mental well-being. These challenges highlight the need to better recognize and address masking in both research and clinical settings. We also discussed how societal expectations play a role in missed diagnoses. Kahle explains that girls are often socialized to be more emotionally aware and compliant, which can make autistic traits less noticeable. Because girls are expected to “fit in,” they tend to develop stronger masking behaviors than boys, leading clinicians to overlook or misinterpret their symptoms. This reinforces the idea that misdiagnoses are not only biological but are also shaped by cultural norms and biases. Additionally, the underrepresentation of women in autism research contributes to systemic gaps in diagnosis and care. Addressing these gaps requires a shift away from male-centered models toward a more inclusive understanding of neurodiversity. Another takeaway from Kahle’s talk is the impact of diagnosis on self-understanding. Kahle shares that receiving her diagnosis as a teenager helped her make sense of her experiences and provided a new path for accessing appropriate support. Rather than viewing autism as something that needs to be “fixed,” she reframes it as a different way the brain can function. This perspective aligns with our group’s discussion of shifting towards neurodiversity-focused approaches that emphasize accommodations and strengths rather than focusing on the deficits. This connects directly to the broader implications for neuroscience research and clinical practice. The continued underrepresentation of women in autism research contributes to systemic gaps in diagnosis and care. Addressing these disparities requires not only earlier recognition of symptoms in girls, but a difference in how autism is conceptualized. Expanding research to reflect a wider range of experiences is essential for building a more accurate and inclusive understanding of neurodiversity. Overall, our discussion reinforced the importance of inclusion in neuroscience. By recognizing biases in both research and society, we can move toward more accurate diagnoses, better support systems, and a more inclusive understanding of how different brains function. Authors: Jess Snyder & Cailee NelsonDuring this week’s lab meeting, the B-RAD Lab engaged in a thoughtful discussion on emerging research in neuroscience. More specifically, we talked about a study that explored the use of psychedelic drugs to treat participants with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. To guide our discussion, we read a recent article by Jane Palmer that described the use of psychedelic drugs in controlled therapeutic settings to treat PTSD. The article outlined the potential benefits as well as the concerns surrounding this approach. A benefit was that the study found psychedelic therapy to be more effective on participants who did not respond to traditional therapies as well. A potential concern was that more research needs to be done for this study to get effective results. The article also explained how the mechanisms by which psychedelics may alter the neural circuits responsible for the fear response associated with PTSD. Using this study as a guide, we discussed how this article may contribute to our understanding of inclusivity more broadly.
First, we talked about whether the specific use of psychedelic-assisted therapy for individuals with PTSD makes treatment more inclusive or more restrictive. If this treatment were to become legalized in the United States, it would likely remain highly regulated and only be administered in supervised clinical settings with extensive safety protocols. We referenced back to a previous lab discussion topic on stigma, thinking about how this treatment structure challenges the societal stigma around psychedelics and their recreational use. The stigma behind psychedelic drugs and their use is that they are frowned upon due to misconceptions on safety and addictiveness which stems back to the War on Drugs era. We also referenced a documentary called How to Change Your Mind which featured an episode highlighting the use of MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy, for psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy. This is another piece of media that challenges drug-related stigma. Ultimately, we agreed as a group that if a treatment meaningfully alleviates suffering and restores a person’s sense of self, it warrants serious consideration for medical use. Psychedelic-assisted therapy aims to address root causes of trauma rather than managing symptoms, which may offer advantages over traditional pharmacological approaches. In this sense, it could expand treatment possibilities for individuals who have not responded to traditional treatments. At the same time, our discussion emphasized that even if psychedelic treatment is beneficial, it is not always accessible to everyone. We found that even though psychedelic drugs are not expensive, psychedelic-assisted therapy definitely is. With a treatment plan that requires trained clinicians, preparation, regulation, and lots of time, costs can be upward of $11,000 per course of treatment. With this, we realized that psychedelic-assisted therapy may not be inclusive of individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. We acknowledged that many individuals with PTSD come from marginalized communities that already face systemic barriers to accessing mental health care. In these cases, psychedelic-assisted therapy could reinforce health disparities if access is limited to individuals with higher socioeconomic status. Ultimately, we recognized that a treatment can be both inclusive by expanding possibilities in the medical field while also being exclusive and inaccessible to others. Importantly, this conversation led to a reflection on our own research practices here at the B-RAD Lab. All of our studies operate within the boundaries that are defined by study-specific research questions and participant criteria. For example, some of our studies may exclude participants who cannot meet certain communication requirements as the research is specifically focused on understanding how individuals communicate. Additionally, some of our studies may exclude participants who are not in a specific age range as a lot of our research currently focuses on adolescents. These boundaries are often study-specific rather than lab-specific and are designed to answer a precise research question. At the same time, we discussed the importance of actively working towards greater inclusivity. One recent way we have done this is by dedicating part of our lab meeting to reworking our diversity and inclusion statement to ensure it aligns with our current practices and our continued commitment to fostering an inclusive and respectful research environment. Psychedelic-assisted therapy, like much of neuroscience research, illustrates that inclusion is not a static achievement but an ongoing process. As a lab, we acknowledge that we are responsible for continuously examining where our work expands access and where it may unintentionally create barriers. |
AuthorB-RAD Lab Members all contribute to our articles. Archives
October 2026
Categories
All
|
|
Sitemap | Contact
|
Copyright: B-RAD Lab, Dr. Caitlin Hudac
Select illustrations on this website were created with assistance from OpenAI's ChatGPT. |
Website updated: October 2026
|