It starts before you have a name for it. The sensation your body produces without warning — a hum running just below the surface of your skin, chest and arms, that arrives before you can locate a cause and refuses to be willed away. A filter you didn’t know you had until it stops working — reactions arriving unmediated, emotions without the half-second gap in which you normally intercept them, a bluntness that other people read as mood and you experience as exposure. The meeting where the edges of your vision narrow until leaving is not a choice but an instruction your body issues without consulting you. The day you drive to help during an emergency and something in the environment — noise, unfamiliarity, the gap between wanting to contribute and what your nervous system will permit — overrides the intention entirely, and you spend the journey home trying to understand what happened in a body that won’t explain itself. The afternoon where any demand lands like a sedative: not distressing, exactly, not emotional, just — gone. As if someone has pulled a plug you didn’t know was there.
These are not subjective impressions. They are not personality traits, comfort preferences, or failures of willpower. They are measurable physiological events — and research can now quantify them with precision. The hum has a signature in heart rate variability data. The different filter is visible on an EEG trace within fifty milliseconds. The body that won’t explain itself has an interoceptive system that delivers signals on a different schedule — or not at all until they’ve already become a crisis.
What follows is what the research shows about bodies like these. Not brain scans and diagnostic criteria — the body. The nervous system. The physiology that is operating underneath every interaction with every institution that was designed for a different kind of body, and that doesn’t know yours is working differently.
Your nervous system operates at a different baseline
The strongest evidence comes from heart rate variability — the variation in time between heartbeats, regulated by the autonomic nervous system and widely used as a marker of physiological flexibility and stress regulation.
A meta-analysis of 34 studies found that autistic individuals show significantly lower baseline parasympathetic heart rate variability than non-autistic controls — a medium effect size (Cheng et al., 2020). The effect was most pronounced during social stress, where the difference became large. These are not momentary stress reactions. They are trait-level differences in how the autonomic nervous system operates at rest. A systematic review of 60 studies on resting-state autonomic function in autism found that over 60% reported group differences, with hyperarousal findings more common on parasympathetic measures (Arora et al., 2021). The picture is not simply “always switched on” but a fundamentally altered regulatory system whose baseline shifts depending on environmental demands.
ADHD shows a different but equally measurable pattern. A systematic review found consistent evidence of autonomic hypo-activation at rest — the nervous system running cooler rather than hotter — with reduced baseline electrodermal activity as a particularly clear finding (Bellato et al., 2020). But during cognitive tasks, the ADHD system shows heightened reactivity, suggesting it can mobilise but cannot calibrate appropriately. Beauchaine’s foundational work described this as autonomic “double jeopardy”: sympathetic underarousal at baseline combined with parasympathetic deficiencies that develop over time. The ADHD nervous system is not simply underactive. It is unable to match its activation to what the environment demands.
An umbrella review synthesising 21 meta-analyses across mental disorders classified the heart rate variability evidence for autism as below the “suggestive” level, noting significant methodological inconsistency across studies (Solmi et al., 2025). This does not mean the differences are absent. It means measurement approaches vary so widely that pooling data across meta-analyses dilutes what individual studies consistently find. The same review rated evidence for PTSD as stronger — highlighting that trauma-related autonomic dysfunction shows greater cross-study consistency.
What this means is concrete. The autistic nervous system is operating from a higher baseline of physiological arousal. The ADHD nervous system is operating from a lower baseline but cannot adjust when demands change. Neither is starting from the same place as a neurotypical system. Every environmental demand — noise, social interaction, unpredictability, sensory complexity — lands on a system that is already working differently.
A quiet workspace, a predictable schedule, control over interruptions — these are not comfort preferences. They are managing the gap between a neurotypical environment and a nervous system that is measurably calibrated for different conditions.
What your nervous system lets through
In a neurotypical nervous system, the brain suppresses its response to repeated identical stimuli. When the same sound occurs twice in quick succession, the response to the second one is reduced by 80 to 90 percent. This is called sensory gating, and it is measurable on an electroencephalogram within 50 milliseconds of a sound reaching the brain — before conscious processing is even possible.
In autism, this gating operates differently. The nervous system lets more through. A Bayesian meta-analysis of auditory processing studies found sensory gating was significantly reduced, with autistic individuals also showing prolonged processing latencies and altered cortical response amplitudes across multiple stages of auditory processing (Williams et al., 2021). Cortical processing of simple sounds is measurably different. Habituation — the nervous system’s ability to learn that a repeated stimulus does not require a fresh response — also operates differently. Research including UK collaborators at the University of Bristol demonstrated reduced habituation alongside decreased mismatch negativity amplitude in autistic children, with the neural measure correlating with parent-reported sensory sensitivity (Ruiz-Martínez et al., 2020). The brain continues responding to every repetition of a stimulus as though encountering it for the first time.
In a quiet environment or one where detecting subtle changes matters, this heightened responsiveness could be advantageous. In an open-plan office, a busy classroom, or a supermarket, it means the nervous system is processing every input that a neurotypical system has learned to suppress. The difference becomes disabling not because of the nervous system but because of the environment.
In PTSD, a similar gating difference appears — but for a different reason. Studies of combat veterans found P50 suppression ratios roughly double those of controls (Neylan et al., 1999). In civilian PTSD, the difference approached levels seen in schizophrenia (Ghisolfi et al., 2004). This is not a system that has broken. It is a system that has been trained by experience to maintain threat detection — and is now operating in an environment that assumes the threat has passed. The nervous system is doing exactly what trauma taught it to do. In ADHD, significant gating differences have also been found, and methylphenidate administration improved suppression (Durukan et al., 2011) — demonstrating the difference is physiological and modifiable, not characterological.
When sensory input reaches a nervous system that does not suppress it, the body responds with quantifiable autonomic activation. Research measuring autonomic activity during sensory stimulation in autistic children found significant differences in respiratory sinus arrhythmia — a parasympathetic measure — across sensory stimuli (Schaaf et al., 2015). The parasympathetic nervous system was responding differently to sensory input than in non-autistic controls. Skin conductance confirmed sympathetic activation. Pupillary light reflex — an entirely automatic, autonomic process outside conscious control — showed significant associations with sensory behaviours (Daluwatte et al., 2015). The body is mounting a measurable stress response to stimuli that the neurotypical nervous system has already screened out.
The workplace evidence makes this tangible. Open-plan office noise elevated urinary epinephrine levels in neurotypical workers who did not even report feeling stressed (Evans & Johnson, 2000) — the body mounting a stress response without conscious awareness. Eight minutes of open-plan noise produced a 25% increase in negative mood and a 34% increase in skin conductance in neurotypical participants (Mak & Willems, 2021). These are neurotypical baselines. For someone whose sensory gating lets more through — where every repetition of background noise triggers a cortical response that a neurotypical system would have suppressed — these figures represent a floor, not a ceiling.
The signals you can’t read
The nervous system generates a continuous stream of information about the body’s internal state — heart rate, breathing, hunger, thirst, temperature, fatigue, pain, bladder fullness, the early signals of escalating stress. The capacity to detect and interpret these signals is called interoception, and it is foundational to self-regulation. If you can feel your heart rate climbing, you can choose to step away before you’re overwhelmed. If you can detect hunger, you eat before your blood sugar crashes. If you can sense fatigue building, you can rest before you collapse.
UK researchers at the University of Sussex developed the dominant framework for understanding interoception, distinguishing three dimensions: accuracy (how well you actually detect signals), sensibility (how well you believe you detect them), and awareness (whether the two match) (Garfinkel et al., 2015). These dimensions are empirically distinct — and in autism, they dissociate in a way that has direct consequences.
A Bayesian meta-analysis found that autistic people show reduced heartbeat counting accuracy but paradoxically higher confidence in their counting performance (Williams et al., 2023). They detect their own heartbeat less accurately than non-autistic controls but believe they are performing well. This metacognitive gap has immediate self-regulation implications: if you don’t know that you’re missing signals, you won’t seek alternative strategies to compensate. The Interoception Sensory Questionnaire, validated in autistic adults, found that 74% report significant interoceptive confusion unless bodily signals are extreme — a figure that captures what laboratory heartbeat tasks may miss.
The mediating variable appears to be alexithymia — difficulty identifying and describing emotions. A UK-based meta-analysis at King’s College London established that approximately 50% of autistic people meet clinical thresholds for alexithymia, compared to under 5% of the general population (Kinnaird, Stewart & Tchanturia, 2019). Critically, researchers at City University London demonstrated that it is alexithymia, not autism per se, that predicts interoceptive differences (Shah et al., 2016). This reframing matters: the difficulty is not that autistic people lack emotions. It is that roughly half process the bodily signals that emotions produce on a different channel — one that often doesn’t deliver the message until the volume is already high.
For ADHD, the picture is earlier-stage. The first systematic review of interoceptive accuracy in ADHD found preliminary evidence for diminished awareness, but identified only three peer-reviewed studies directly comparing ADHD to controls (Bruton et al., 2025). Given that ADHD is characterised by dysregulation across multiple domains, this gap is striking.
If you have ever missed lunch without noticing, worked through exhaustion until you collapsed, or not realised you were anxious until you were already in crisis — this may be why. Your interoceptive system is not delivering the early warning signals that would allow you to regulate proactively. You are not ignoring your body. You are not receiving the signal.
This is why “just take a break when you need one” does not work as an accommodation for many neurodivergent people. If you cannot detect the need for a break until you are already past the point of recovery, you need scheduled breaks built into the structure — not permission to take them when you notice you need them.
When the system overwhelms
A meltdown is not a tantrum. A shutdown is not laziness. Dissociation is not checking out. These are the nervous system moving through defensive states because it has been pushed beyond its regulatory capacity.
Polyvagal theory identifies three hierarchical response states that the autonomic nervous system moves through based on unconscious threat detection — what Porges calls neuroception. Social engagement, mediated by the ventral vagal system, operates when the nervous system detects safety. Fight-or-flight, mediated by the sympathetic system, activates when threat is detected. And shutdown — the dorsal vagal response — engages when the nervous system determines that active defence is not possible and the body immobilises (Porges, 2011). These state shifts occur without conscious awareness and without voluntary control.
Meltdowns map onto sympathetic activation. Shutdowns map onto dorsal vagal collapse. Research defining autistic burnout through interviews with autistic adults described sensory tolerance dwindling “to near nothing,” with routine noises becoming unbearable (Raymaker et al., 2020). UK researchers at UCL and King’s College London identified themes including “the powering down of the mind and body” and “craving social and sensory rest” (Ali, Mandy & Happé, 2026) — descriptions that map directly onto autonomic states.
The cortisol evidence confirms this. Research has found significantly higher peak cortisol levels and prolonged recovery following stressors in autistic individuals, with larger initial stress reactions to novel stimuli and slower return to baseline (Spratt et al., 2012; Corbett et al., 2009). A comprehensive review characterised the pattern as HPA axis hyper-responsiveness to aversive stimuli combined with hypo-responsiveness to social evaluative threat (Taylor & Corbett, 2014) — not simple over-reactivity but dysregulation, the system unable to match its response to the nature of the demand.
The clinical concept of the “window of tolerance” — a zone of optimal autonomic arousal within which a person can process information and regulate effectively — is widely used in trauma therapy but has not been formally measured in neurodivergent populations. The heart rate variability evidence strongly suggests that neurodivergent individuals operate with a narrower window, meaning less environmental variation is needed to push the system into hyper- or hypo-arousal. This is a plausible and clinically important hypothesis awaiting direct measurement.
Telling someone in autonomic crisis to calm down is like telling someone having an asthma attack to just breathe normally. The instruction assumes voluntary control over a system that has moved beyond voluntary regulation. If these are involuntary physiological events — and the evidence says they are — then excluding a child for having a meltdown is excluding them for a disability manifestation. That argument is made fully in the next piece in this series. This piece establishes the physiological foundation it rests on.
Trauma lands differently in a neurodivergent body
When a nervous system that is already operating at a different baseline encounters trauma, the consequences are compounded.
UK researcher Freya Rumball’s programme of work has been foundational here. Her research found that 32 to 45% of trauma-exposed autistic adults exceeded clinical cut-offs for probable PTSD — significantly higher than non-autistic comparison groups (Rumball et al., 2020). Critically, a cumulative effect of trauma on PTSD symptom severity was found only in the autistic group, suggesting that repeated adversity compounds more severely when the nervous system is already operating differently. Further research demonstrated that autistic adults show heightened risk of PTSD specifically through the role of cumulative trauma and memory processing differences (Rumball et al., 2021).
Complex PTSD — recognised in the ICD-11 from 2022 — adds the “disturbances in self-organisation” criteria: affect dysregulation, negative self-concept, and difficulties in relationships. These overlap substantially with features commonly attributed to autism, creating a diagnostic overshadowing problem that a landmark Delphi study of 106 international experts formally named as critical (Sarr et al., 2025). An autistic person presenting with emotional dysregulation may have it attributed entirely to their autism, masking co-occurring trauma. Conversely, a person with CPTSD whose sensory hypervigilance and social withdrawal are misread as autism may never receive trauma-informed treatment.
Research has also found that autistic adults report events as traumatic that do not meet the standard clinical threshold — bullying, social exclusion, sensory environments, loss of routine, and loss of autonomy (Kerns et al., 2022). The definition of what constitutes trauma may need expanding for people whose nervous systems process threat differently.
The physical dimension of trauma in neurodivergent bodies is the compounding. Trauma produces lasting autonomic changes — altered heart rate variability, disrupted cortisol patterns, elevated inflammatory markers. For a nervous system already operating at a different baseline, these changes do not land on neutral ground. They layer onto pre-existing regulatory differences. The person is not just carrying the weight of autism or ADHD. They are carrying the weight of trauma on top of a system that was already working harder. And the system designed to help them may be attributing the trauma symptoms to the neurodevelopmental condition and not treating either properly.
No study has yet measured CPTSD prevalence in autistic adults using ICD-11 criteria. Body-based trauma therapies have minimal evidence — Somatic Experiencing has one randomised controlled trial, against a waitlist, with no active-control comparison (Kuhfuß et al., 2021). NICE PTSD guidelines do not address assessment or treatment adaptations for neurodivergent people. The evidence gaps are themselves telling.
The body keeps a wider score
The emerging research on autism increasingly reveals a multi-system condition that extends beyond the brain into connective tissue, autonomic regulation, and immune function.
A nationwide Swedish population study found that individuals with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome — a group of connective tissue disorders characterised by joint hypermobility, chronic pain, and fatigue — were 7.4 times more likely to have an autism diagnosis and 5.6 times more likely to have ADHD (Cederlöf et al., 2016). Siblings without EDS also showed elevated risk, suggesting shared genetic vulnerability. A systematic review and prevalence meta-analysis established bidirectional prevalence: approximately 31% of autistic individuals exhibit joint hypermobility, while approximately 39% of people with EDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders meet autism criteria (Baeza-Velasco et al., 2025). UK research comparing 109 neurodivergent adults against general population norms found that 51% showed generalised joint hypermobility — an odds ratio of 4.51 — with significantly more pain and dysautonomia symptoms (Csecs et al., 2022).
The UK research team at Brighton and Sussex Medical School has proposed and tested a mechanism connecting body structure to emotional experience. Variant connective tissue generates unpredictable proprioceptive signals from joints — what the researchers call proprioceptive “surprise.” In neurodivergent individuals whose sensory prediction systems already process differently, this amplifies emotional dysregulation (Eccles et al., 2024). A connective tissue variant produces a sensory signal that the nervous system processes atypically, generating emotional consequences that are then dismissed as behavioural. The chain from body structure through nervous system to emotional experience is measurable at each step.
Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome — a form of autonomic dysfunction causing fatigue, dizziness, brain fog, and exercise intolerance — appears at elevated rates. Gold-standard autonomic testing at two UK national referral centres found that 71% of autistic adults tested received a diagnosed autonomic condition, with the majority also having hypermobile EDS (Owens, Mathias & Iodice, 2022). The sample was small and drawn from specialist referral, so the figure likely overestimates population prevalence. But it establishes an important principle: autonomic dysfunction in autism is not a subjective complaint. It is a clinically demonstrable, objectively measurable condition.
Brain fog, chronic fatigue, joint pain, dizziness on standing, exercise intolerance — these are commonly reported by neurodivergent people and commonly dismissed. The emerging evidence suggests they may not be coincidental. They may be downstream consequences of the same underlying nervous system architecture. This does not mean every autistic person has EDS or POTS. It means the boundary between “neurological” and “physical” disability is less solid than the systems built around it assume.
The cost of breaking focus
Monotropism — the tendency to focus attention intensely on a narrow number of interests at any time — was proposed by autistic researchers Murray, Lesser and Lawson in 2005 and has achieved strong recognition within autistic communities while receiving remarkably little empirical attention from mainstream research. The first validated psychometric instrument, the Monotropism Questionnaire, found that autism and ADHD status together explained 57.4% of variance in monotropism scores (Garau et al., 2023). The theory describes something that many neurodivergent people recognise immediately: when you are in the flow of focused attention, the world narrows and steadies, and you function at your best. When that focus is broken — by an interruption, a context switch, a competing demand — the cost is not just cognitive. It feels physical.
No study has measured physiological markers during monotropic attention states. This is the most significant gap in this entire evidence base. But the general population literature tells us what flow does to the body: moderate sympathetic arousal combined with elevated parasympathetic activation — a specific, measurable autonomic state involving co-activation of both branches of the nervous system (Peifer et al., 2014). And the interruption literature tells us what breaking focus does: a randomised controlled trial found that salivary alpha-amylase — a sympathetic nervous system marker — significantly increased during work interruptions compared to uninterrupted work (Becker et al., 2023). Interrupted workers compensate by working faster at the cost of significantly higher stress, and require an average of 23 minutes to regain full focus (Mark et al., 2008). Stress-related cortisol specifically impairs the cognitive operation of task-switching (Goldfarb et al., 2017).
Qualitative research captures what this feels like from the inside. Autistic adults describe flow as all-encompassing immersion — the polar opposite of the low-grade stress of navigating busy, unpredictable environments (Rapaport et al., 2024a). Autistic inertia — the difficulty starting and stopping tasks — has been described as “the single most disabling part of being Autistic” while simultaneously containing positive aspects: immersion as joy and optimal function (Rapaport et al., 2024b). Flow serves as a cognitive and sensory regulation tool, reducing prediction errors and stabilising attention (Wain et al., 2026).
If interruptions activate the sympathetic nervous system in neurotypical people, and monotropic individuals are by definition more deeply engaged in single activities, and task-switching is already harder, then the autonomic cost of interruption should be amplified. Nobody has measured this. That absence of measurement is not evidence that the cost is not real. It is evidence that no one has looked.
When an employer requires constant task-switching from an autistic worker, they may be triggering repeated sympathetic activation — measurable stress — without any evidence base to quantify it. The failure to measure the physiological consequences of forcing monotropic individuals into interruption-heavy environments is a systemic failure to investigate the embodied experience of autistic cognition. For a research programme about what institutions fail to accommodate, that gap is itself an argument.
What this means
Neurodivergent conditions produce measurable, physiological differences in how the nervous system operates at rest, how it filters sensory input, how it reads its own internal signals, how it responds to overwhelm, how it processes trauma, and how it interacts with connective tissue and immune function. These are not preferences, personality traits, or character flaws. They are physical. They are quantifiable. And they are operating continuously in every environment the neurodivergent person enters.
If these conditions are physical — and the evidence presented here says they are — then the distinction between “physical” and “mental” disability that accommodation frameworks depend on is itself the problem. A quiet workspace manages a sensory gating difference as directly as a ramp manages a mobility difference. Scheduled breaks manage an interoceptive difference as directly as a hearing loop manages hearing loss. Control over interruptions manages an autonomic cost as directly as an accessible toilet manages a physical need. The nervous system does not know the difference. Only the institution does.
The next piece in this series — The Compassion Gap — examines why, given this evidence, the system continues to treat these conditions as less deserving of accommodation than other disabilities. The answer has nothing to do with biology. It has everything to do with which disabilities make institutions uncomfortable.
This is the foundational piece of the Broken by Design series, which examines the gap between UK disability policy and practice across education, employment, and financial services. Next: The Compassion Gap.
References
Ali, D., Mandy, W. and Happé, F. (2026). How does “autistic burnout” feel? A qualitative study exploring experiences of earlier and later-diagnosed autistic adults. Autism. doi:10.1177/13623613261422117
Arora, I., Bellato, A., Ropar, D., Hollis, C. and Groom, M.J. (2021). Is autonomic function during resting-state atypical in Autism: A systematic review of evidence. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 125, 417–441. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.041
Baeza-Velasco, C., Vergne, J., Poli, M., Kalisch, L. and Calati, R. (2025). Autism in the context of joint hypermobility, hypermobility spectrum disorders, and Ehlers–Danlos syndromes: A systematic review and prevalence meta-analyses. Autism, 29(8), 1939–1958. doi:10.1177/13623613251328059
Becker, L., Kaltenegger, H.C., Nowak, D., Weigl, M. and Rohleder, N. (2023). Biological stress responses to multitasking and work interruptions: A randomized controlled trial. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 156, 106358. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2023.106358
Bellato, A., Arora, I., Hollis, C. and Groom, M.J. (2020). Is autonomic nervous system function atypical in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? A systematic review of the evidence. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 108, 182–206. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.11.001
Bruton, A.M., Levy, L., Rai, N.K., Colgan, D.D. and Johnstone, J.M. (2025). Diminished interoceptive accuracy in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review. Psychophysiology, 62(2), e14750. doi:10.1111/psyp.14750
Cederlöf, M., Larsson, H., Lichtenstein, P., Almqvist, C., Serlachius, E. and Ludvigsson, J.F. (2016). Nationwide population-based cohort study of psychiatric disorders in individuals with Ehlers–Danlos syndrome or hypermobility syndrome and their siblings. BMC Psychiatry, 16, 207. doi:10.1186/s12888-016-0922-6
Cheng, Y.-C., Huang, Y.-C. and Huang, W.-L. (2020). Heart rate variability in individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 118, 463–471. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.08.007
Corbett, B.A., Schupp, C.W., Levine, S. and Mendoza, S. (2009). Comparing cortisol, stress and sensory sensitivity in children with autism. Autism Research, 2(1), 39–49. doi:10.1002/aur.64
Csecs, J.L.L. et al. (2022). Joint hypermobility links neurodivergence to dysautonomia and pain. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 786916. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.786916
Daluwatte, C., Miles, J.H., Sun, J. and Yao, G. (2015). Association between pupillary light reflex and sensory behaviors in children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 37, 209–215. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.11.019
Durukan, I. et al. (2011). P50 sensory gating in children and adolescents with ADHD and effects of methylphenidate administration on P50 sensory gating. Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 21(1), 42–48.
Eccles, J.A., Quadt, L., Garfinkel, S.N. and Critchley, H.D. (2024). A model linking emotional dysregulation in neurodivergent people to the proprioceptive impact of joint hypermobility. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 379(1908), 20230247. doi:10.1098/rstb.2023.0247
Evans, G.W. and Johnson, D. (2000). Stress and open-office noise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 779–783. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.779
Garau, V. et al. (2023). Development and validation of a novel self-report measure of monotropism in autistic and non-autistic people: The Monotropism Questionnaire. OSF Preprints. doi:10.31219/osf.io/ft73y
Garfinkel, S.N., Seth, A.K., Barrett, A.B., Suzuki, K. and Critchley, H.D. (2015). Knowing your own heart: Distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness. Biological Psychology, 104, 65–74. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.004
Ghisolfi, E.S. et al. (2004). Impaired P50 sensory gating in post-traumatic stress disorder secondary to urban violence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 51(3), 209–214. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2003.09.002
Goldfarb, E.V., Frobose, M.I., Cools, R. and Phelps, E.A. (2017). Stress and cognitive flexibility: cortisol increases are associated with enhanced updating but impaired switching. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(1), 14–24. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01029
Kerns, C.M. et al. (2022). Exploring potential sources of childhood trauma: A qualitative study with autistic adults and caregivers. Autism, 26(8), 1987–1998. doi:10.1177/13623613211070637
Kinnaird, E., Stewart, C. and Tchanturia, K. (2019). Investigating alexithymia in autism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Psychiatry, 55, 80–89. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.09.004
Kuhfuß, M., Maldei, T., Hetmanek, A. and Baumann, N. (2021). Somatic experiencing — effectiveness and key factors of a body-oriented trauma therapy: a scoping literature review. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 12(1), 1929023. doi:10.1080/20008198.2021.1929023
Mak, C.M. and Willems, T. (2021). An experimental study of open-plan office noise on mood and physiological stress. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, 42(5), 555–574.
Mark, G., Gudith, D. and Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 107–110. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357072
Murray, D., Lesser, M. and Lawson, W. (2005). Attention, monotropism and the diagnostic criteria for autism. Autism, 9(2), 139–156. doi:10.1177/1362361305051398
Neylan, T.C. et al. (1999). Sensory gating in chronic posttraumatic stress disorder: Reduced auditory P50 suppression in combat veterans. Biological Psychiatry, 46(12), 1656–1664. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00047-5
Owens, A.P., Mathias, C.J. and Iodice, V. (2022). Autonomic dysfunction in autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 15, 787037. doi:10.3389/fnint.2021.787037
Peifer, C., Schulz, A., Schächinger, H., Baumann, N. and Antoni, C.H. (2014). The relation of flow-experience and physiological arousal under stress — Can u shape it? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 62–69. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.009
Porges, S.W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. W. W. Norton.
Rapaport, H. et al. (2024a). “In a State of Flow”: A qualitative examination of autistic adults’ phenomenological experiences of task immersion. Autism in Adulthood, 6(3), 362–373. doi:10.1089/aut.2023.0032
Rapaport, H. et al. (2024b). “I live in extremes”: A qualitative investigation of autistic adults’ experiences of inertial rest and motion. Autism, 28(5), 1305–1315. doi:10.1177/13623613231198916
Raymaker, D.M. et al. (2020). “Having all of your internal resources exhausted beyond measure and being left with no clean-up crew”: Defining autistic burnout. Autism in Adulthood, 2(2), 132–143. doi:10.1089/aut.2019.0079
Ruiz-Martínez, F.J. et al. (2020). Impaired P1 habituation and mismatch negativity in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(2), 603–616. doi:10.1007/s10803-019-04299-0
Rumball, F., Brook, L., Happé, F. and Karl, A. (2020). Experience of trauma and PTSD symptoms in autistic adults: Risk of PTSD development following DSM-5 and non-DSM-5 traumatic life events. Autism Research, 13(12), 2122–2132. doi:10.1002/aur.2306
Rumball, F., Brook, L., Happé, F. and Karl, A. (2021). Heightened risk of posttraumatic stress disorder in adults with autism spectrum disorder: The role of cumulative trauma and memory deficits. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 110, 103848. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103848
Sarr, M. et al. (2025). Differential diagnosis of autism, attachment disorders, complex post-traumatic stress disorder and emotionally unstable personality disorder: A Delphi study. British Journal of Psychology. doi:10.1111/bjop.12731
Schaaf, R.C., Benevides, T.W., Leiby, B.E. and Sendecki, J.A. (2015). Autonomic dysregulation during sensory stimulation in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(2), 461–472. doi:10.1007/s10803-013-1924-6
Shah, P., Hall, R., Catmur, C. and Bird, G. (2016). Alexithymia, not autism, is associated with impaired interoception. Cortex, 81, 215–220. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.021
Solmi, M. et al. (2025). Heart rate variability in mental disorders: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Translational Psychiatry, 15, 103. doi:10.1038/s41398-025-03339-x
Spratt, E.G. et al. (2012). Enhanced cortisol response to stress in children in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(1), 75–81. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1214-0
Taylor, J.L. and Corbett, B.A. (2014). A review of rhythm and responsiveness of cortisol in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 49, 207–228. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.07.015
Wain, T. et al. (2026). Transitioning in and out of Autistic Flow. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research. doi:10.1002/capr.70073
Williams, Z.J. et al. (2021). Cortical auditory processing of simple stimuli is altered in autism: A meta-analysis of auditory evoked responses. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 6(8), 767–781. doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.09.011
Williams, Z.J. et al. (2023). Characterizing interoceptive differences in autism: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(3), 947–962. doi:10.1007/s10803-022-05656-2