1) Autism Research Unit, “Villa S. Maria” Institute, Tavernerio, Italy Valentina Gariboldi2, Giulio Valagussa1,2, Erica Terragni2, Luca Trentin1, Davide Mauri1, Cecilia Perin2, Cesare Cerri2, Enzo Grossi1 1) Autism Research Unit, “Villa S. Maria” Institute, Tavernerio, Italy 2) School of Medicine and Surgery – University of Milano Bicocca, Milan, Italy POSTURAL CONTROL ASSESSMENT IN ASD CHILDREN USING THE PEDIATRIC BALANCE SCALE AND THE FALL SCREEN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM: RESULTS FROM A PILOT STUDY Background ASD in children is associated with impairments in fine and gross motor skills, planning and coordination of movement, and praxis. ASD affects in particular the basic sensorimotor control process of upright standing. Little evidence is available on this topic in the literature, mostly neglecting the assessment of different balance’s constituents in favor of simpler and functional approaches. The aim of this study is balance’s assessment in a group of ASD subjects: 1) using the Pediatric Balance Scale (PBS); 2) using the Fall Screen Assessment System (FSAS), matching the results with a control group of normally developing subjects. Methods The study sample included 9 ASD subjects and 16 healthy subjects matched by age. ASD subjects were diagnosed according to the DSM V criteria. Tests used were: 1) PBS; 2) FSAS, a multi-item mean which explores sensorimotor performances, validated for adult subjects. Results The two groups were comparable as regards age distribution. Five ASD subjects (56%) showed a balance deficit at the PBS and were also positive for the FSAS. Two more subjects appear to be at risk of falling only by the FSAS. FSAS application resulted to be easily feasible both for children and adolescents. A statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between the two groups was found for: visual contrast sensitivity, touch sensitivity, ankle and knee forces, reaction time for hand and sway tests, evidencing an overall postural control impairment in ASD. FSAS Control group Mean (95%C.I.) ASD group (CI) T-test independent means Visual acuity high contrast (MAR) (C.I.) 0,94 (0,15) 1,31 (0,26) p-value 0,862 Visual acuity low contrast (MAR) (C.I.) 1,79 (0,45) 2,21 (0,36) p-value 0,485 Contrast sensitivity (dB) (C.I.) 21,63 (0,58) 20,44 (1,02) p-value 0,025 Depth perception (cm) (C.I.) 1,07 (0,41) 1,69 (0,66) p-value 0,673 Proprioception (degrees) (C.I.) 2,05 (0,51) 1,80 (0,83) p-value 0,503 Touch sensitivity (Log 0,1 mg) (C.I.) 3,93 (0,27) 4,42 (0,95) p-value 0,036 Ankle DF (kg) (C.I.) 13,13 (1,85) 9,89 (3,01) p-value 0,044 Kneeext (kg) (C.I.) 39,25 (9,22) 22,22 (8,36) p-value 0,014 Kneeflex (kg) (C.I.) 19,38 (3,89) 11,22 (3,3) p-value 0,006 Reaction time hand (ms) (C.I.) 235,91 (26,34) 385,17 (105,21) p-value: 0,036 Reaction time foot (ms) (C.I.) 318,34 (36,27) 456,49 (89,76) p-value 0,081 Sway floor EO (mm) (C.I.) 68,19 (18,73) 195,93 (69,9) p-value 0,003 Sway floor EC (mm) (C.I.) 98,29 (14,76) 211,01 (81,99) p-value 0,042 Sway foam EO (mm) (CI) 137,08 (36,17) 598,39 (338,01) Sway foam EC (mm) (C.I.) 278,12 (101,43) 851,77 (434,75) p-value 0,009 Co-ordinated stability track (n) (C.I.) 3,45 (3,93) 15,67 (9,98) p-value 0,077 Maximal balance range (mm) (C.I.) 215,00 (17,86) 172,19 (48,01) p-value 0,244 TOTAL SCORE (C.I.) 0,28 (0,54) 3,30 (1,17) p-value 0,381 Conclusion This study confirms that ASD subjects are at major risk of fall in everyday life, probably due to a deficit in processing of sensory and motor inputs. We suggest FSAS as a complementary tool in ASD’s management since it directly assesses the individual’s physiological abilities as regards balance. In this way intervention strategies can be improved towards areas of deficit. Further studies are necessary to confirm the results of this pilot study.