Correlation Between Autistic & Feral Children?

Post Reply New Topic

There's also interesting parallels between autistic children and children kept in overcrowded, underfunded orphanages.

AND in naturally social animals reared in isolation.

I've seen studies that suggest that children raised in isolation, are deficient in the hormone oxytocin the social bonding hormone; this is also said to lead to greater potential for addiction later in life.

There is also research that suggests that some autistic people may be deficient in oxytocin; and perhaps in the case of autism it is of biological origin rather than environmental origin.

I would imagine that environment also plays a strong role in autism, in how one develops socially. But I think the key similarity between feral children and some autistic children is the inability to feel the same instrinsic reward from socialization that is common among other people.

And regarding repetitive behaviors, research indicates chronic stress, itself, can lead to repetitive behaviors that aren't goal oriented. No doubt, this also influences some autistic people's behavior as well as feral children. There are also parallels in chronic abusive domestic relationships in changes in social behavior ranging from lack of eye contact, poor verbalization, inability to bond, and repetitive behaviors with no clear goal.

I don't know... I don't think it is a problem with the reward system so much as it is a problem of cognition. Even if one does not feel the rewards of social interaction, being socially competent and learning to use language to communicate will help a person to get whatever else it is that they find rewarding. People like this are sociopaths: they are socially able, but not socially motivated (although they can appear socially suave to get what they want).

Although autistics may experience diminished internal rewards for social interactions, the underlying reason for this is an inability to relate to others and learn socially, which leads to deficits in language and other socially learned abilities.

I think its important to recognize that the source of the problem in autism is a deficit in social cognition, not a problem with the social "intrinsic reward" system (although when social cognition is impaired, socially interactions will not be as rewarding, but this is a secondary symptom).

It's really difficult to figure any of this stuff out unless you have a specific case in front of you and you have tons and tons of data on the child and have met the child/observed them firsthand. I heard about Dani whenever she was on Oprah (can't recall when and I'm too lazy to look it up), and I've learned about several other famous feral children since. However, as I said before, not every miniscule detail of the child's development is released to us as the public, so our guesses aren't as informed as they could be. In fact, tons of names and other data are modified to protect privacy in some cases. That said, there could still be that slim chance that the child was bound to have an ASD whether neglected/left for dead/released into the wild or not, but it's safe to say that the classic autism symptoms that are exhibited (apparent disinterest in social interaction, mental retardation/intellectual issues, lack of speech, coordination issues, sensory problems, etc.) are exhibited because of the extreme and damaging lack of social and intellectual exposure, and the symptoms are merely in common. The brain at birth in many of these cases was capable of developing "neurotypically", but as it was not given the proper information with which it could grow and develop, it developed very slowly... and "autism" is seen as a "delay", right? But not all "delays" are autism.

I'm not suggesting a deficiency in oxytocin causes Autism. Science suggests a biological link between the hormone oxytocin that makes a person feel good when they bond socially and a deficiency of the hormone only in some people with Autism. As far as I know only Autistic children with Classic Autism have been studied and only some have been suggested to have the genetic related issue with Oxytocin. It's only a link, not conclusive evidence.

Studies show children isolated in childhood have lower levels of oxytocin and are less likely to engage in social interaction. However the deficiency in the hormone doesn't mean they won't eventually overcome the problems with social interaction.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/childhood_neglect_leaves_biological_mark/

.

Clearly this may not be an issue with all people that have autism. However one cannot clearly separate problems with social cognition and the hormone oxytocin or a disruption of neurochemicals related to general cognition and the reward center in the brain.

Without proper levels of dopamine a person can have executive functioning problems. Without proper levels of serotonin a person can be more likely to have high levels of anxiety, which effects cognition. Cognition can affect the hormones and neurochemicals, and the hormones and neurochemicals can affect cognition. It's really hard to know what causes what. But, the following link suggests a biological one for Autism and problems with oxytocin:


Here is the study related to autism:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/62/



The link is stronger in the association of a deficiency of oxytocin in children that are isolated in receiving personal care. The research in an association of Autism is fairly new. But as far as I am aware the only scientific link of similarity that some Autistic children and isolated children have other than social behavior, is a possible deficiency in oxytocin.

The research on oxytocin deficiency in animals reared without mothers is much more comprehensive than studies that have been done on humans. Here is one example:

http://www.nature.com/?file=/npp/journal/v28/n5/full/1300128a.html&filetype=pdf



We don't get the opportunity to do these kind of studies with humans the way we do with other animals. A key point in this study is that within the monkeys that were reared with their motherse, those with lower levels of oxytocin also displayed lower levels of social interaction. There is no clear biological relationship here, it could still be an environmental or other biological factor at play, but never the less the relationship of oxytocin and social the development of social affiliation in these animals is strong.

I question the authenticity that any child survives in the wild for years without some kind of assistance from a human being. As far as I know there is no real scientific evidence of it other than second hand accounts. I think most cases of feral children are those that have been neglected or abused.

I, too, had a hostile relationship with my mother when I was young and lost my natural bond with her because she was violent and emotionally abusive. She is a natural bully and a classic child batterer and even uses pets as hostages to manipulate others. I had an episode of mutism when I was six and may have regressed at that age, or perhaps my autistic traits stem from the abuse only. I have not been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder but I score like autistic adults on on-line quizzes and have many characteristics of Asperger's. So I do see the parallels but I don't know that you can say the end result is exactly the same even if the cause is environmental. Perhaps my brain has been shaped by my past in ways that led me to resemble autistic adults, but I suspect if the cause was abuse and not genetic then there is an underlying difference in how my brain developed and how much of my avoidant and adaptive behaviors can be unlearned.

I once read about oxytocin that when large amounts of the hormone are released, they can erase some synapses in the brain (many in fact) leading the affected individual to see the world with fresh eyes, in a child like way, and if this event is coupled with social bonding they will do this relearning with the other person's perspective in mind, leading to a deep bond that is somehow written into their new worldview. I only read this once a long time ago and have never been able to rediscover any article describing this process, so I am unsure whether to credit what I remember, but I thought it was an interesting explanation of how a hormone might influence social bonding.

Here's an interesting and relevant article: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AutismNews ... id=9843745

"Social function improved in autism-spectrum patients treated with the hormone oxytocin, according to a small study."

I agree with aghogday that one has to be careful about inferring a causal relationship between autism and oxytocin deficiency or insensitivity, and it could also be that the deficiency/insensitivity to oxytocin must be present only during critical periods of development to produce developmental abnormalities leading to autism.

But it is really interesting that administering oxytocin to adults can reduce AS symptoms. That would suggest to me a primary role of oxytocin in ASD symptoms.

I'm taking a neurobiology course next semester and I'm planning to do my 30 page term paper on this topic...

I hadn't seen the rhesus monkey study before, but it really made me think about some of the human environmental conditions in modern culture that are new as opposed to the past.

It wasn't too long ago in history when a mother was almost constantly bonding with a child, not unlike the mothers of the rhesus monkeys. Now small children are often taken to daycare almost immediately after birth, as economic necessity dictates. Then they are often put in front of a TV in the evening as some parents are too exhausted to spend hours interacting with the children.

Then as the children grow older they pursue interaction with modern devices instead of playing with other children or interacting with parents as they did in the historic past. Not that any of this causes Autism, or there is any intentional neglect of children, but I wonder how it impacts oxytocin levels in children and the strength of their ability to socially interact and bond through life.

And then when it comes time for a diagnosis later in life, with no evidence of early developmental delay, if the child has problems interacting in school, how can we know if the symptoms are caused by genetic influences of autism, or are purely environmentally influenced. Is the child born wired in a different way or does the child's brain adapt and re-wire itself to this new and unusual human environment. Do the children seek other areas of stimulation, other than social interaction, because their oxytocin levels are low like those of the rhesus monkey reared in a nursury without physical contact with their mothers?

Children that already have a slight genetic propensity toward Autism, may be more heavily influenced by this type of environment, leading to a greater possibilty of impairments in social functionality.

Then there is the issue of how do we study this, when so much of society operates this way. It takes me back again to Amish Societies and their focus on human interaction and rejection of interacting with electronic devices, and low frequency of ASD's among the population.

When first studied cases of ASD's were 1 in 10,000. When a whole county was studied it was 1 in 238. I'm sure if a whole county in NewJersey was studied the rates would be much higher than 1 in a 110. They certainly wouldn't be lower than they are now for those that voluntarily seek a diagnosis.

At the time of the Refrigerator mother hypothesis, we didn't have the number of electronic devices that have taken the place of human touch, warmth, and sharing of emotionality. And during that period of time women were not a part of the workforce, as they are now, separated from their children because of economic necessity. The recent studies on oxytocin show that the social environment plays a role, not just in psychogenic factors, but real biology that can be measured.

It might be interesting to measure oxytocin levels in the Amish as opposed to other cultures, if that hasn't already been done. We already know that the frequency of ASD's is lower.

If our modern culture, is a significant factor, how can we turn back, and where will it lead to in the future? I can think of ways to turn back. The Amish people kept a conscious descision not to progress forward with the rest of the world. But where we are going, as a society in general, looks like much of the same of what we do now, possibly done in a more invasive manner.

All interesting ideas.

I'd never heard that the Amish have low incidences of ASD, but that is very interesting. Although you are focusing on the cultural differences in Amish society (e.g. focus on relationships, rejecting technology), I'd also point out that the Amish are not only a cultural island, but a genetic one. We know that ASD has a large heritable component and there is a link between autism and having parents with highly technical jobs (leading to higher prevalence within Silicon Valley in CA and the research triangle park in NC, where I am from). Its not a new idea that increases in autism prevalence may be partly driven by the incredible growth of highly technical jobs and increasing incomes for people with highly technical skills, combined with the geographic clustering and assortative mating of these people. In a society like the Amish, such people may simply not have the same opportunity to express their uniqueness or conglomerate into groups of geeks to have babies loaded with autism-risk genes.

All speculation of course, but I'm just saying its going to be difficult to disentangle the cultural and genetic uniqueness of a small population with very limited gene flow and different "selection pressures", like the Amish.

I agree, we haven't even identified a single definitive genetic cause for Autism, so at this point even with genetic studies comparing geek populations and Amish populations, genes among the two populations related to Autism would have little significance other than the 1 in 100 correlation we see now among any of the present identified Autism related genes.

What we could measure, easily though, is oxytocin levels, among the two populations, testing the children that have been diagnosed as opposed to those that haven't been diagnosed in controlled population groups of both cultures. And also, testing adults with Autism and without Autism.

Not only would one normally consider Silicon Valley to have the highest genetic propensity toward autism, but the environmental factors mentioned earlier in the other post would probably be as high as they are anywhere else, because of the propensity of the parents to be involved in tech at home, and for their children to be involved in tech from an early age also. The likelyhood is probaby greater that a large number of both parents are in the workforce to be able to afford to live in this area, also.

All the opposite of what one would expect to see among the culture of the Amish.

If the oxytocin levels weren't significantly different among these two populations we could probably disregard the hypothesis that there is a significant biological or environmental link between autism diagnoses and oxytocin.

I don't think we will ever fully understand what the environmental impact on Autism diagnoses are until we can pinpoint definitive genetic causes for Autism. This might be one of the best reasons to continue genetic research, although I have the feeling that they will continue to come up with more genetic associations, making a single genetic answer even harder to find.

If environment can create most all the symptoms of autism in a neglected child, it's hard to imagine how many other inherited genes/spontanous mutation of genes/environmental factors play a different and unique part in every case of Autism.

I read the first few posts here, and a post later on, then no more. I will relate to you my childhood.

My parents gave me plenty of attention and provided for my needs and interests in a constructive and proper manner.
My family was---and still is---extremely close. We have enjoyed an abundance of quality time together.
I was never mistreated. I was always encouraged. My talents and interests were always supported by my family.
Many times my parents tried to get me involved in more socially oriented things---but I did not want that.
My autism has always been a part of who I am---I was born that way---it had nothing to do with parenting.
My self-absorption into interests was my choosing (because of autism) and nothing to do with my upbringing.

I am around many autistic children and know many of their parents---they are incredible parents that deliver encouragement and appropriate parenting skills. The autism in the kids I see has come as a result of the makeup of the child's brain and not the upbringing of the child.

I sincerely believe we with autism are simply born that way. I believe it is genetic.

The fact that they keep finding associations shows that there is no single genetic answer. I think autism is no different from being overweight in that a different combination of genes and environmental factors will contribute to individual cases of autism.

I expect there are different paths to developing autistic symptoms, but I'd also expect there to be some critical common factor(s) to all of those paths (e.g. oxytocin production/sensitivity issues during key stages of development could result from either a genetic abnormality or abnormalities in various hormone levels in the womb, and different combinations of these different "causes" could produce the same syndrome).

But even if the syndrome looks the same, it seems like identifying the different causes could be really important for tailoring treatment to individuals. For example, some people may have an oxytocin deficiency, while others may be insensitive to oxytocin because of a genetic defect (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4007001358)... the former type might benefit from administering exogenous oxytocin, while the latter would not benefit because it is his/her own receptors that are damaged (and maybe someday, gene therapy or some other technology I can't imagine would be able to treat disorders of "broken genes").



Yeah I really agree with this. There will never be an "autism gene" to explain every case.

I had the same close to perfect upbringing, as I can imagine without a present father, and contribute it to every success I had in life. Any problem in my family life was a result of my behavior in everycase. I had a speech delay until 4. Nothing in my family life caused it, and nothing could be responsible for it other than a biological language delay.

I remember the one attempt at little league baseball, right field, and staring into the sky watching birds fly over, just wanting it to get over with, not understanding why anyone would want to participate in such an activity.

However, life in general is not the same as it was in the days of my youth. Without all the advantages I had early in life and through young adulthood from having a family that had time to attend to my every need and an easy environment on my senses, there is no way I would have had the success that I had. That is the environmental advantage that some have had with Autism. I would like to think that all people with autism have the same advantages I did, but I know they don't, unfortunately. Parents may do everything they can do in their power to ensure their children have the best of lives, but they can't change culture back to the way it was for us when we where growing up.

If they can no longer afford the house that use to cost $15,000 and now costs $100,000, they have no choice but to separate their child from themselves while they work.

They can't make SuperWalmart into the grocery store that only had thirty or forty people in it at one time. They can't change TV back into black and white shows that only presented a positive view of life and moved at a real life pace, and they can't do anything about the general level of stimulation that has increased in the world, among so many other environmental factors and requirements in life we have now that we didn't have before. Perhaps they could try to protect their child from all these things, but it doesn't look like the world is going to get any more relaxed, anytime soon.

I think the important part of Autism, is how successful we are in adapting to life, while we have many advances to treat Autism today that weren't present in my childhood, I think the other environmental advantages I had were every bit as important as much of the treatment available is today.

I doubt parents care any less about their children than they did when I was young, but the world is a much different place overall, and a more challenging one for many people.

I do agree that Autism is genetic in origin; my sister, cousin, father, Uncle, and apparently German Grandfather all have/had it to some degree, but I feel sure that the level of impairment in everyday life that some children experience today, is influenced greatly by environmental factors that weren't present in years before.

While a previous study on Autism with twins led us to believe that genetics accounted for 90% of Autism. Here is a new larger study just released that suggests that while genetics plays a role, environment actually plays a larger part in whether or not someone actually develops autism.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archgenpsychiatry.2011.76

The good news here for those concerned about a potential genetic pre-natal test for autism is if environment is necessary in many cases for one to develop autism rather than genetics alone, it will be much harder to predict autism with a genetic prenatal test alone.