The Future of Sensory Assistive Technology

By: Rachel Aghedo

Introduction: The Marvel of Human Senses

              Sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch are the primary senses that form the foundation of human perception. This is evident in how we navigate interpersonal relationships, appreciate the warmth of sunlight against our skin, recognize the striking scent of smoke from a campfire and are comforted by the familiar texture of clothing. With each and every one acting as a mold that shapes our subjective reality. In modern neuroscience this concept is referred to as embodied cognition ¹, whereby our senses don’t just act as data collection agencies but rather intertwine with the human psyche; because often how a person experiences the world around them influences how they think, communicate and thereby relate to others.

          The importance of these experiences are all the more amplified and varied in individuals with developmental disabilities, such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) ², a neurodevelopmental condition that affects how individuals communicate, learn, behave and interact socially or Sensory Processing Disorders (SPD) ³ , described by an individual's difficulty in detecting, moderating or responding to sensory experiences. Atypical sensory processing occurs in over 90% of individuals with ASD ⁴, as well as prevalent amongst those with Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Thus, as assistive technologies continue to evolve, a deeper question emerges: can technology do more than just compensate for sensory challenges in a neurotypical world?

Part I: The Evolution of Sensory Accessibility

      Over the past several decades innovations in sensory accessibility have evolved to aid individuals dealing with hypersensitivity (over responsiveness), hyposensitivity (under responsiveness) and sensory seeking behaviours ⁵. Some of the most impactful work is strikingly simple: quiet spaces, dimmable lights and scent-free policies, because accessibility isn’t always about adding more sophisticated technology but by thoughtfully removing barriers ⁶. Other assistive tools help support sensory regulation directly, such as: noise cancelling headphones, weighted blankets and vibrotactile devices. Progress thus far signals an increasing recognition of sensory diversity as a fundamental part of human diversity. But it’s only the beginning, with emerging innovations now promising systems capable of adapting to individual sensory needs in real time.

Part II: Innovators & Inventions

       [Case Study I: Vibrotactile Wearables] ⁷

       For many individuals with sensory disorders distress doesn’t begin as a visible meltdown, but rather internally from compounding physiological and environmental factors where self-regulation evades. So much so that by the time distress is noticeable, the nervous system is already in overload. Dr. Christiana Santamaria - Siurana and other researchers sought to address this challenge by exploring whether wearable vibrotactile stimulation could serve as calming sensory intervention. This device delivers controlled vibrations at 210 Hz through small modules placed on the body, specifically targeting proprioceptive sensory pathways (systems involved in body awareness). 

        The study later expanded into a clinical trial in 2022 ⁸, involving a child with autism. Vibrostimulation was given in alternating periods, where at 3 minute intervals retroactive movements disappeared entirely and the child demonstrated improved intentional hand movements. On an equally important note, the experience was deemed to be an engaging and fun activity, rather than an experience merely tolerated. As such, the future of sensory assistive technology may not lie with overriding the brain, but through interventional equilibrium.

       [Case Study II: Moxie Robot] ^{9, 10}

       While our previous study focused on calming the sensory nervous system through touch, here we reimagine how technology can shape one of the most complex sensory tasks: social interaction. Created by Embodied and led by roboticist Paolo Pirjanian, Moxie, an AI-powered robot was designed to give autistic and other sensory haptic individuals the ability to practice emotional interaction in a safe and judgment free environment . 

        Social Communication demands varying difficulties due to nuances in body language, tone, timing and emotional ambiguity. Moxie takes center stage by incorporating AI-driven dialogue, paired with its simplified and exaggerated facial expressions that are much easier to read than human microexpressions. Preliminary research on Moxie's STAR framework occurred with 12 children over a 6 week period. Observations showed large improvements in the children's ability to hold eye contact, longer lasting engagement and improved verbal dialogue. 

        Following were more broad based robotic performance reviews ¹¹ that showed an overwhelming increase in motivation to participate in these therapies. From this we see that Moxie's greatest innovation wasn’t the incorporation of AI in robotics which has been done prior, but the predictability that it gives in light of the unpredictable and sensory overwhelming nature of conversation.

Conclusion & Ethics

      As sensory assistive technologies become more intelligent and personable, they raise questions that extend beyond engineering. By not asking whether these technologies function or how they function, but rather what they are ultimately designed to do. Should technology help neurodivergent individuals adapt to society, or should society adapt towards neurodivergent sensory needs?

     This question gains emphasis especially in scenarios where technology could be suppressing visible sensory behaviours. Repetitive behaviours such as rocking, hand flipping and other forms of stimming are not always signs of dysfunction alone, but rather important self-regulatory mechanisms for individuals who experience sensory overload. As such, a primary ethical goal should never be to eliminate these differences for the comfort of neurotypical observers but to reduce distress while preserving an individual's autonomy.

        A notable advocate on this matter would be Temple Gradin, a scientist and prominent voice in autism advocacy, especially in cases of heightened sensory sensitivity. Through her work in deep pressure therapy, notably the hug machine, she was able to capture how carefully designed tactile input can calm the nervous system without suppressing individuality. This distinction matters especially when relating a medical model (the need to fix) vs a social model (an accepting environment) approach to disability. 

        Rather than viewing these models as opposing forces, the future of sensory assistive technologies may require integrating both perspectives, each revealing something essential about the human experience. Technology could offer meaningful support but no intervention should come at the cost of erasing the ways in which diverse people experience the world. Afterall, a world that is more accessible isn’t just good for a few but is better for all.

Sources:

1. Fincher-Kiefer, R. (2019). An introduction to the theory of embodied cognition. In American Psychological Association eBooks (pp. 3–12). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000136-001

2. Autism Spectrum Disorder. (n.d.). National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/autism-spectrum-disorder

3. Passarello, N., Tarantino, V., Chirico, A., Menghini, D., Costanzo, F., Sorrentino, P., Fucà, E., Gigliotta, O., Alivernini, F., Oliveri, M., Lucidi, F., Vicari, S., Mandolesi, L., & Turriziani, P. (2022). Sensory Processing Disorders in Children and Adolescents: Taking stock of assessment and novel therapeutic tools. Brain Sciences, 12(11), 1478. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12111478

4. Forster, J. (2023). Understanding sensory processing difficulties in children and adolescents with ASD. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 62(10), 50–51.

5. Ben-Sasson, A., Hen, L., Fluss, R., Cermak, S. A., Engel-Yeger, B., & Gal, E. (2009). A meta-analysis of sensory modulation symptoms in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-008-0593-3 

6. Leonardi, S., Di Cara, M., Giliberto, S., Piccolo, A., De Domenico, C., Leonardi, G., Alito, A., Siracusano, R., Calabrò, R. S., Quartarone, A., & Cucinotta, F. (2025). The use of multisensory environments in children and adults with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Autism, 29(8), 1921–1938. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251320424

7. Santamarina-Siurana, C., Cloquell-Ballester, V., Berenguer-Forner, C., & Fuentes-Albero, M. (2022). Effect of vibrostimulatory wearable technology on stereotyped behaviour in a child with autism and intellectual disability. BMJ case reports, 15(12), e252181. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2022-252181 

8. Ahlfors, S. P., Graham, S., Alho, J., Joseph, R. M., McGuiggan, N. M., Nayal, Z., Hämäläinen, M. S., Khan, S., & Kenet, T. (2022). Magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography can both detect differences in cortical responses to vibrotactile stimuli in individuals on the autism spectrum. Frontiers in psychiatry, 13, 902332. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.902332 

9. Hurst, N., Clabaugh, C., Baynes, R., Cohn, J., Mitroff, D., & Scherer, S. (2020). Social and emotional skills training with embodied moxie. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12962. 

10. Cano, S., González, C. S., Gil-Iranzo, R. M., & Albiol-Pérez, S. (2021). Affective Communication for Socially Assistive Robots (SARs) for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 21(15), 5166. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21155166

11. Van Straten, C.L., Smeekens, I., Barakova, E. et al. Effects of robots’ intonation and bodily appearance on robot-mediated communicative treatment outcomes for children with autism spectrum disorder. Pers Ubiquit Comput 22, 379–390 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-017-1060-y