Topological Reading of Movement Connectivity in Sensory Integration Space for Autistic Children

Abstract

This article describes how autistic children experience space dedicated for sensory integration (SI) therapy activities and how the idea of topology enables a thorough reading of their experiences. A topological approach is used to investigate the SI activity space through the narratives of children’s activities. Rather than considered as a collection of elements, SI space is seen as a space of a connected sensory tour based on the child’s movements in different SI therapy scenarios. Every scenario has different operations that show how children move within the environment as a form of responses involved in the SI process. This article illustrates how connectivity occurs based on the narratives of space experienced by the child. Exploration of scenario sequences and their operations in detail may develop an understanding of the comprehensive spatial experiences and thus expand our knowledge of spatial design for individuals with autism.

Keywords

topology connectivity movement narratives scenario operations

Topological Reading of Movement Space

Space is experienced by and explored through our bodily movements in it. Spatial experience includes the experience of movement and relations in space (Tuan, 1977). Study of the continuity of body movements in space becomes possible through the concept of topology as the study of positional properties. Topology seeks to be independent from geometry or the exact layout of things; its primary concern is to understand the way in which objects are put together or connected to one another (Devlin, 1997; Shields, 2012). As a consequence, topology does not deal with the measurable dimension of objects but more with the objects’ surfaces and edges in relation to one another.

Some properties of topology include “insidedness, outsidedness and connectivity” (Scalbert, 1999, p. 43). The property of connectivity in particular has become a primary concern in many topological studies of space, which particularly refer to “the notion that entities-in-relation make their own space-time” (Lury, 2013, p. 128). In the studies of space and spatial properties, topological approach offers a dynamic perspective in understanding human spatial experience, particularly how human movements and actions in space could be understood through their connectivity (Henriques, 2012; Koopman, 2008; O’Doherty, 2013). In particular, this approach contributes to understanding the way in which objects could be mapped in relation to other objects “in multiple, relational spaces” (Shields, 2012, p. 48).

This article proposes a topological approach in understanding the uses of spaces dedicated to Sensory Integration (SI) therapy for autistic children. It studies the child’s experience of space by exploring the narratives of connectivities based on the child’s body movements. Children with autism tend to have problems in the process of registering sensory input from the environment and integrating these inputs to form something meaningful. SI therapy is an intervention approach initiated by A. Jean Ayres (1979) to enhance the process of sensory integration in autistic children. SI activities are conducted in an environment that enables various opportunities for sensory experience and movements, thus facilitating just-right challenges for each individual child (Roley & Jacobs, 2008).

SI problems in autistic children have been commonly addressed by developing spatial design guidelines for autism. Such guidelines set criteria of architectural environments that allow the adjustment of the sensory input. Spatial guidelines for autism include the appropriate use of color, texture, sense of closure, orientation and acoustics (Moustafa, 2008; Paron-Wildes, 2005; Vincenta & Sachs, 2010), by considering the child’s tendency of hypersensitivity or hyposensitivity toward certain sensory inputs (Messbauer, 2008).

In addition to the standard spatial requirements as set in those guidelines, the children’s movement in space is equally important in the sensory registration process for autistic children. Some forms of movement impairments are commonly found in children with autism (Ming, 2007), and such impairments may influence children’s abilities to conduct activities in daily life and in turn affect their quality of life. Movement should become one of the primary considerations in the intervention programs for children with autism (Siaperas et al., 2012); however, this aspect tends to be overlooked in the design process.

When the body moves within and throughout the environments, visual and body-based sensory receptors, both proprioceptive and vestibular, jointly integrate and create a self-motion perception that guides the body in space (Campos, Butler, & Bulthof, 2012). An important feature of SI intervention includes “opportunities to move through space so that the child can achieve increasingly complex somatomotor adaptive responses” (Roley & Jacobs, 2008, p. 804). The child’s active movements become important in SI activities. The active responses of children while doing different movements and their act of adaptation when being exposed to different sensations form the process of SI. The spatial setting plays an important role in providing the possibilities of objects and spaces to which the children may respond through various actions (Atmodiwirjo, 2014).

The topological approach in this study becomes a means to investigate the connectivity among various SI activities during the therapy process and how children’s movements may change or redefine this connectivity. A topological reading is performed by investigating the narratives of a child’s experience of SI activity space. Such narrative inquiry allows the relationships between the children and their environment to be explored topologically.

Topological narratives of SI activities may vary according to the specific aims of intervention, which is designed based on the individual child’s needs and responses. Each session may have a specific “scenario” on how the SI goals may be achieved based on a certain response and/or an adaptation by the child and the therapist. A scenario is then developed through “operations” (De Certeau, 1984). Operations indicate “the series of individual and social habits, repeated over the course of time” that produce repeated microevents (Teysott, 2013, p. 23). The topo-logical approach enables the detailed study on scenarios and operations by investigating how movements are performed in real time and how they become the manifestation of connected SI experience in a space.

It is important to underline that in this topological perspective, the space is seen not only as a collection of objects or elements but also as a space of connected movements. Topological geometries in general, “. . . deploy disparate forces on a continuous surface within which more or less open systems of connection are possible” (Lynn, 2011, p. 125). Topology as the study of position is beneficial in exploring the space beyond its physical layout, especially to discern how it enables different scenarios and connected operations to be performed by children continuously in space.

Narratives and Operations of Topological Space

“A topology of experience may be strategically sketched as a diagram of what happened or what happens, but the contingencies of the embodied flow of experience, . . . suggest more multidimensional models of happening . . .” (Shields, 2012, p. 50). Therefore, understanding the child’s movement space from a topological perspective requires more than just merely exploring how the spaces and movement are two-dimensionally mapped. This article proposes narratives and operations as a way to examine the topological space of a child’s movement in an SI activity space.

Narratives involve the arrangement of story materials consisting of sequence, space, and time (Psarra, 2009). Through narratives, spaces are no longer seen as a static envelope but as spaces experienced by humans (Smith, 2001). Narrative structures also “regulate changes in space (or moves from one place to another) made by stories in the form of places put in linear or interlaced series” (De Certeau, 1984, p. 115). In this study, the topological reading of the space was conducted by looking into how the activities and movement happen through certain scenarios.

The topological features are explored through spatial properties, such as orientation, outsidedness, insidedness, and connectivity (Scalbert, 1999). Since these are the properties that determine the topological geometry, they become the elements to examine in this topological study of space. Narratives of activity scenarios enable these elements to be investigated by looking at its sets of operations.

The idea of operations is related to the concept of tours and maps from De Certeau (1984). A tour is a form of “spatializing actions;” it “organizes movements” and looks at the “relation between the itinerary as a discursive series of operations.” It is in contrast to a map, which is the “plane projections totalizing observations” that may show “knowledge of an order of places” (p. 119). In terms of the movement space of autistic children, the idea of a tour provides an understanding of the operations, which consist of fragments with different forms based on situations and details (De Certeau, 1984). Operations then are revealed through sequences and influenced by the details of the child’s movement.

In this study, observation of operations was conducted by investigating the child’s movement in its micro detail, in every gesture and action generated by various triggers. The actions might emerge based “on a model learned from others through imitation . . . , reconstituted from memory . . . , or established through trial and error based on similar actions” (De Certeau, Giard, & Mayol, 1998, p. 202).

Operations are also influenced by how they enable the organization of the whole body and the spatial elements. The relationship between operations and space is explored through the following four elements:

The narrative fabric in which describers (descripteurs) of itineraries predominate is thus punctuated by describers of the map type which have the function of indicating either an effect obtained by the tour (“you see . . . ”) or a given that it postulates as its limit (“there is a wall”), its possibility (“there’s a door”), or an obligation (“there’s a one-way street”), etc. (De Certeau, 1984, p. 120)

It could be inferred that effects are obtained by the subject from the order of elements, while what is given in a space may limit the whole experience. In addition, there is also the possibility and/or the obligation that is provided by the elements that may be revealed in a tour and that change the course of experience of the body.

In our analysis of the SI space in this article, the physical setting of the activity space is considered as a scenario of a connected sensory tour. This scenario is narrated by the therapist and perceived and represented by the children through operations. A scenario should be able to redefine the continuity of “surfaces” (Lynn, 2011), or how the surfaces of space can be experienced by children in a connected way through operations.

Topological Reading of SI Space

Spatial Setting

In this study, the narratives of SI activity space were revealed through a series of unobtrusive observations of children’s activities during SI therapy sessions (Figure 1). The observations were conducted during 19 therapy sessions taking place in two therapy spaces in an autism therapy center. The duration of the session varies from 20 to 70 minutes, and in total, they contain more than 400 units of SI activities for autistic children.

Figure 1.

Space for sensory integration therapy sessions.

The environments of these therapy spaces were designed to cater to autistic children with certain tendencies for various habits and movements. The walls were padded, and some parts of the floor were covered with mattresses for safety purposes. The surfaces in the spaces were composed of soft objects such as big cushions and pliable units of cushions with various shapes. There were also permanent features such as a slide, climbing stairs, and a flying fox. Several structures were located to hang movable items like small swings or bolsters. In addition, there were cabinets to store miscellaneous small items needed for hands-on therapy activities. Both rooms had nondistracting colors such as deep blue and warm brown with a nondistracting pattern of parquet flooring. Texture elements for tactile sensations were applied in the grain of fabrics in the cushion and silky sheets as a part of therapy equipment.

The spaces and all their elements provided various sensory inputs (visual, tactile, and auditory) as well as opportunities for the children to explore their body awareness and balance. They were used in the therapy sessions conducted primarily on a one-to-one basis, with the therapist supervising the child throughout the activities. The arrangement of the equipment in the spaces might change during the session as directed by the therapist.

The SI process occurred not only during the child’s interaction with certain equipment but also in between each movement. Therefore, each activity conducted during the session was recorded: both the activities related to certain equipment and the in-between activities. The observations were recorded in the form of narrative texts that contain the whole sequence of activities throughout the duration of the session, and these texts became the primary materials for the topological analysis.

Discovering a Narrative for Movement Space

Narratives for a scenario in therapy space are developed by understanding how operations connect and create the story of SI. In terms of movement, such connectivity can be explored by studying each child’s movement in relation to its environment. The process of SI happens when the child operates in space throughout the effect, the given, the possibility, and the obligation (De Certeau, 1984). Understanding the narrative of movement space involves not only a single movement of the child but also the operations occurring in such movement that triggers the subsequent movement. Thus, the types of equipment and the physical attributes of space become less relevant than how the relationship between objects and spaces affects the position of the child in series of movements.

In our observation of various SI therapy sessions, every child used the equipment differently, depending on his or her capabilities and needs for challenges. The child might access the equipment that interests him or her in a different manner (e.g., obsessively repetitive or without order); the child might also wander in between elements and might even give no response at all or completely ignore the whole environment. The narratives of each therapy session were developed based on its goals for the child’s SI development. The goals might determine the types of sensory input to be provided: whether the child needs “inhibitory” input, which is expected, rhythmic, sustained, or slow, or “excitatory” input, which tends to be unexpected, arrhythmic, uneven, or rapid (Kinnealey & Miller, 1993, p. 484).

These inputs are designed to stimulate children to achieve focus and then enable them to engage in goal-oriented activities. Based on the different types of sensory inputs, the sequences of therapy scenario activities could be explored based on their intensity and duration (Williamson, Anzalone, & Hanft, 2000). Intensity refers to how powerful the sensation is to each child, while duration refers to the length of the stimulus and its lasting effect. Every child has a different threshold that influences the level of intensity and duration that he or she may endure. With different threshold levels, each therapy session had different scenarios with varying intensity and duration. The scenario exposed the children to a variety of movements in between objects and space. A scenario consisted of different possible movements that could be performed by the child and how those movements could be directed or redirected to fulfill the therapy goals. In this process, the therapist played an important role in ensuring that the child’s movements were relevant to the aim of the scenario.

Narratives and Topological Reading of the Scenario

Scenario 1

To explore the narratives of SI therapy based on a topological approach, the following is an analysis based on the observation of an SI therapy session that involves an autistic child with a tendency for hyperactivity. The session consisted of multiple operations of the child’s movement in between objects and spaces. Figure 2 illustrates continuous loop of the child’s movements during the session. This loop represents the “insidedness” of the space (Scalbert, 1999), as the flow of this scenario created by the child’s movements in space.

Figure 2.

Loop of connectivity of child’s movements in Scenario 1.

To explore the intensity and duration of movement during this therapy session, which form the sequence of the scenario, the loop was then translated into a topological scenario diagram in Figure 3. This diagram is layered above a collage that represents a section of the space. As the exact layout of the space is irrelevant from a topological perspective (Devlin,1997), the side boundaries of the whole space are exposed together as one continuous surface (Lynn, 2011) of the space.

Figure 3.

Topological diagram of movements in Scenario 1.

The diagram in Figure 3 illustrates different movements that happened in relationship with certain equipment, in between different equipment, and in the space in general. The equipment available in the space was used at different frequencies as represented in different types of lines in the diagram. The dotted lines indicate low-speed movements, while the dashed lines indicate movements at normal speed and the straight lines indicate movements at high speed.

Children with a tendency for hyperactivity tend to have a low sensory threshold. They also find it hard to engage and elaborate, and they often do things repetitively with narrow focus (Williamson et al., 2000). In this session, the child’s movement began by walking slowly and quickly, followed by high-impact movements, such as bouncing and swinging. The high impact movements were followed by relatively stationary movements, such as playing with puzzles together with the therapist. After that, the cycle was repeated with low-impact to high-impact movements, followed by repetitive actions of playing with slides and cushions.

Figure 4 illustrates how the scenario of movements with varying intensity and duration becomes relevant to support the goals of SI. The intensity at the beginning of the session was designed to be powerful and had a high impact as a stimulation to promote focus, with the duration of the activity long enough to provide a longer lasting effect on the child’s nerves of energy and enable concentration. After high-intensity stimulation, the therapist proceeded to goal-directed activities that required the child to focus and engage with the therapist.

Figure 4.

Topological sequence of sensory integration in Scenario 1.

The next goal-directed activities included crawling through a tunnel and riding a scooter that helped the child to regain self-control. These activities were followed by repetitive activities of climbing and jumping that were beneficial to maintain the child’s alertness. In addition, activities such as jumping and bouncing helped the child to exercise his or her vestibular system (Kinnealy & Miller, 1993), thus enabling the vestibular and balance system in the brain to work together, which often becomes a challenge for hyperactive children.

Scenario 2

Similar to the methods of analysis for Scenario 1, the diagram in Figure 5 was derived from the text related to observations during another SI activity session. It illustrates the child’s movements in a therapy scenario for a child with challenges of the vestibular and balance system along with tactile sensitivity.

Figure 5.

Topological diagram of movements in Scenario 2.

To achieve focus, it was necessary to calm the child first with activities that involved a lot of swinging movements back and forth. After these calming activities, the therapist helped the child climb up the slide and let him jump onto the cushion repetitively to expose him to the bouncing sensation. This high-impact activity was quickly followed by a relaxing motion of spinning in the swing together. The child proceeded with the following activities of playing with the ball, climbing up the slide, and jumping onto the cushions, which were again followed by relaxing on the swing. In between these activities, the child also exercised his balance by walking on a series of soft blocks. The child then climbed onto the slide platform, slid down through a fabric tunnel, balanced on the soft blocks, and repeated the series of activities several times. Afterwards, he climbed onto the vertical cylindrical shape, got into its hole, and hid inside. The session ended with a relaxing swinging activity to calm the child’s tactile sensory system.

The diagram in Figure 6 illustrates spatial sequences of this scenario with different levels of intensity and duration. The sequence began with low-speed activities, followed by a series of goal-oriented activities with high impact and high speed, with some movements conducted repetitively, and again ended with calming activities. The duration of goal-oriented activities was rather short, interrupted by frequent breaks every now and then to avoid overstimulation of the child’s sensory system.

Figure 6.

Topological sequence of sensory integration in Scenario 2.

Topological mapping of this scenario reveals how each movement may connect and perform a sensory tour necessary for the child along the space. It shows how a surface between the slide and the cushion became a surface to achieve focus for some, whereas for others, it became a surface for goal-oriented stimulation. This sequence also exposed the interdependence between different equipment and throughout the space to form a multifarious surface. For example, the positioning of the cushion near the slides and the flying fox becomes important, as an in-between surface that provided comfort during the interval of high-intensity movements. The swing set became an in-between surface for a calming effect between high-impact activities.

The scenario diagram reveals the connectivity between surfaces that were involved in the child’s movements during the therapy session. Such connectivity becomes important as the purpose of SI intervention is not only to always promote the ability to do certain movement in a normal way but also to experience the movements in a connected way to make sense of the environment in relation to the child’s SI challenges.

Following similar methods of analyses, topological diagrams of movements were generated for all other SI therapy sessions (Figure 7). They illustrate a variety of spatial sequences of activities, with varying duration and intensity, and they show different ways in which movements were sequenced and connected to one another, creating different movement experiences and connectivity.

Figure 7.

Topological diagrams of movements in some SI therapy sessions.

Topology and Detailed Operations

SIs perform in stories of experiences and through connected operations. In the process of experiencing, the child’s movement is not merely based on the therapist’s instructions but rather “drifting away” in the activities. This part is important in influencing changes on the scenario because it adjusts the operations along the way (De Certeau et al., 1998). These operation details could be revealed by looking into the texts that describe the narrative of SI session. The text enables the exploration on architectural construction of experience through unfolding sequence (Psarra, 2009).

The topological exploration of the child’s active experience in space also considers the different orientation, as it translates spatial relations and connection between things and people (Leatherbarrow, 2012). In the SI session, a child was exposed to an experience of moving in between various surfaces of equipment and space. Topology explores how this experience might create continuity of orientation. The orientation of the child toward his or her surrounding space surfaces became an essential part of understanding the operation text as it underlined connectivity between different surfaces.

In each scenario, the operations were explored based on the tour and map narratives of the child’s experience in the space, and by looking into the four elements of effects, given, possibility, and obligation as the descriptors of the tour (De Certeau, 1984). By looking at the details of each operation, we could understand how the child explored visual cues from the sensory tour, moving his or her body toward certain boundaries and rules, and learning how every object delivers the potential for him or her to move. In this experience, the child acquired input from all of the senses, which was then integrated into his or her exercise tour. Each operation also showed the child’s experience of SI while exploring the space and thus making sense of his or her environment.

Detailed Operations of Scenario 1

Explorations on the operations of SI activities were conducted by looking into a part of the narrative below.

The child walked towards the slide and climbed up the slanted surface of the slide. She then reached the upper part of the slides, turned right and walked straight and at the end of path she jumped onto an array of big cushions below . . . then she leaned the cushion upright to reach for the flying fox above her and then she swung her body to the front in parallel with the trail of the flying fox. When she had almost reached the end of the trail, she swung her body to the front and released herself down from the flying fox and landed onto the stack of cushions near the end of the trail . . . After she got out of the tunnel, she went to the donut-shaped cushion at the left side of the tunnel and leaned forward on the cushion while looking for some toys inside it . . .

Based on this part of the narrative, the explorations of operation sequences were performed by slicing the connectivity loop into several sections and investigating its text to understand the details of SI and its spatial elements. Figure 8 illustrates the sections that contain five operation texts in this part of the scenario: climbing up, jumping onto, leaning upright, releasing down,and leaning forward.

Figure 8.

Section plane and details in loop of connectivity of movements in Scenario 1.

The first text, labeled climbing up , explored how the spatial properties affected the body based on connectivity of movement. In climbing, the child folded her knee to support the body, reached to the front, and enabled the legs to follow the movement of the hands involved in the action of crawling up. Thus, the operation consists of two parts: a possibility, by understanding the slides as a surface to climb up, and a given, which explained how the body followed a slanted surface and continued up to the upper level by changing the body orientation toward the space. The key spatial properties consisted of a surface that continued toward other different kinds of surfaces in terms of heights.

The second text, jumping onto , shows how the action was a result of the previous movement. To jump, the child needed to bend and bounce to an upfront orientation and fell with her hand folded to one side to grasp her body when she landed. The operation here consists of the possibility of seeing that the different surfaces could be connected by the act of jumping. This act involved body awareness to initiate the jump, body balance while jumping, and tactile experience when landing. The key spatial properties were the surfaces to initiate jump, the gap in space for jumping, and the surface being lower than the first one as a landing surface.

The next section, leaning upright , showed that to reach the flying fox trail, the child had to bend upright and move her hands to the front in order to initiate swinging. The operations were effect, possibility, and obligation. The effect was in understanding the availability of something to reach for after looking at a certain height. Possibility was when the child balanced the cushion as a supporting surface to stretch upright in order to reach the trail and then to support her swing initiation. Obligation was the existence of trail track that forced her body toward a certain direction. The key spatial properties were visual cues at the higher space (the beginning of the flying fox), on the surface to support the activity of stretching and swing initiative, and orientation toward the track with specific trajectory for the body to follow.

The fourth section, releasing down , illustrates the condition when the child was about to reach the end of the trail; she swung her leg upfront, released her hand, and landed by extending her hand. The operations shown in this text were given and obligation.Given was the limit of the trail perceived by the child that forced her to stop the movement through the flying fox. Obligation was how the orientation of the flying fox toward one direction determined the landing position. The key spatial properties consisted of the track, the surface that limited the track, and the landing surface in the same orientation as the track.

The final text derived from this narrative was leaning forward . The operations of SI on this text consisted of effect, when the child saw the toys that could only be grasped by leaning her body toward them, and possibility,when she recognized the use of the cushion sides to lean and balance on while reaching her hands to grab the toys. The key spatial properties of this text consisted of the visual cues (the toys), the supporting surfaces for the leg, the leaning surfaces for the body, and the gap space for the hand to reach out.

Topological readings of movement show detailed relationships between operations and spatial properties. Spatial properties indicated how the space might support the body in different orientation, enable gaps and paths for the body to reach and make a way forward, and force the body to move toward a specific orientation. These three features can be then detailed in a set of operations to build the whole narrative of the SI activities.

Detailed Operations of Scenario 2

A similar method of analysis was conducted to explore the details of operation in Scenario 2. Based on the following text taken from the observation scenario, the connectivity loop was then sliced into several sections as illustrated in Figure 9, which contain five operation texts.

. . . The child climbed onto the slide platform, slid down through a fabric tunnel, balanced on the soft blocks, and repeated this series of activities several times. . . . He climbed onto a large ball, laid down and gently rocked on the ball . . . he crawled forward through the hole of a donut-shaped cushion. . . . Afterwards he climbed onto the vertical cylindrical shape, dipped down into its hole and hid inside . . .

Figure 9.

Section plane and details in a loop of connectivity for movements in Scenario 2.

The first text, climbing onto, referred to the act of trying to reach the top platform of the slide. In doing so, the child climbed up, held the slide with his hand and knee, and lifted his body higher. SI happened when the child saw the possibility of the slide as the surface to initiate the climbing activity with the aid of his body awareness and balance while lifting his body upwards. The key spatial properties were the surface that supported the climbing and the lower surface that served as a landing surface.

The next text, sliding down , was the act of sliding down through a tunnel positioned above the slides. To position the body to slide down inside the tunnel, the child folded his leg and shifted inside; thereafter, he positioned his body and slid downwards with his hands next to his body. The operations in this text were possibility, given, and obligation. The possibility was when the child saw the tunnel as a way to slide down. Given was the boundary that forced his body awareness to fit into the tunnel and to control the movement inside the tunnel. Obligation was the track that forced the body to limit the direction of sliding, following the linear direction of the tunnel. The key spatial properties are the surfaces that may support sitting before sliding down, including the slanted longer surface and space that surrounds the whole body and the landing surface.

The third text was rocking on the curved surface of a large ball. The child climbed onto the ball and lay in a prone position on top of the ball, holding it with his hand and leg, lifting his body up toward the front, and hanging above in a state of balance while moving back and forth. The operations in this text were possibility and obligation. Possibility was when the child saw the ball as something to move on by using his body awareness. Obligation was the curved surface that forced the child to keep his body balanced by moving the ball in a certain direction. The key spatial surfaces were the surface that supported the climbing activity and the curved surfaced object that was big enough to be balanced by the whole body.

The crawling forward text referred to the child’s movement when crawling through a hole of a donut-shaped cushion. The child lowered his body, folded his knees, crawled through the hole, and looked up in half way out. The operation consisted of possibility, given, and obligation. The possibility was when he saw the hole of the donut-shaped cushion as a way to crawl into. Given was the boundary of the hole that limited his body movement to fit the hole and his movement inside the tunnel with tactile stimulation. Obligation was the position of the hole that limited the direction of crawling. The key spatial properties were the surfaces that could support movement to initiate crawling and the surface that surrounded the whole body in a crawling position.

The final section of dipping down into consisted of the act of getting into a cylindrical cushion that was positioned vertically. To get inside, the child held the sides of the cushion with his hand and feet, lifted his body above the sides, and folded his leg and squatted inside the cylindrical cushion. The operation consisted of possibility and given. The possibility was when he saw the hole of the cushion as a place to hide. Given was when he could put his entire body inside only by folding his body as the effect of the cushion’s boundary. The key spatial properties were the surfaces that could support the leg while climbing and the longer surface that surrounded the whole body while squatting.

The detailed analyses of operations in Scenarios 1 and 2 indicate the presence of key spatial features that were involved in the operations of the SI therapy activities. The three spatial features found in Scenario 1 were the following: supporting the body in different orientation, enabling gaps and path for the body to reach and make ways, and forcing the body to move in a specific orientation. Detailed operations on Scenario 2 suggest the fourth feature, that is, how the space surface will affect the body movement when placed in parallel with the body itself throughout a different orientation. In this sense, the body was obliged to follow the nature of the spatial properties and orientate itself to be able to encounter and navigate the space.

These spatial features were formed in relation to certain movement operations, and since each operation reflects a sliced part of the connectivity loop, these spatial features represent parts of connectivity that happen in-between movements and space. We will now intend to reveal the topological connectivity that occurs throughout the whole scenario of the SI session.

Layered Operations and Scenario Diagram

The description of the operations found in the SI activity space forms an understanding of the SI scenario and specific spatial features that were necessary for each child. The connectivity that occurred in between movements and spaces could be explained further by layering the scenario diagram with operations diagram, as illustrated in Figures 10 and 11.

Figure 10.

Topological space diagram for Scenario 1.

Figure 11.

Topological space diagram for Scenario 2.

The diagrams in Figure 10 show the spatial experience of SI in Scenario 1. It illustrates different spatial properties in relation to different spatial sequences. The second diagram separates the spatial properties in relation to orientation (straight, above, below, slanted) to isolate the space used by the child topologically. To achieve focus and maintain alertness at the beginning and the end of the session, the spatial experience employed frequent changes between different levels, such as paths and gaps. The space for goal-oriented activity mainly consisted of narrow spaces to achieve full engagement from the child, providing boundaries for the child.

Figure 11 shows the diagrams of topological space in Scenario 2, where the space for goal-oriented activity mainly consisted of support spaces in an elevated surface, slanted surface, and gaps in space to exercise the child’s balance and vestibular system. The breaks also occurred by hanging above the swing. In addition, these spaces were also occasionally equipped within a small boundary to calm the child’s sensitive stimuli.

Topological readings on both scenario and its operations become important to reveal the connection between different spatial properties that altogether form the space that matches the child’s SI needs. The layering diagram of the scenario and its operations demonstrate how the connectivity of spatial properties of SI space is formed based on the connectivity of the child’s movements in space.

Toward a Topological Spatial Design Model

Topological reading through narratives of SI activities allows further understanding on the children’s spatial experience through movements. The narratives consist of scenarios performed by the child. They contain sequences of movement operations performed by the child in relation to certain spatial properties. Every child is unique and has his or her own strengths and challenges, and thus requires different scenarios of sensory tour with different options of movements. Through the narrative of each sensory tour, it is possible to learn the sequences of movements and how they are relevant to certain spatial properties. The scenario contains the child’s sequences of movements in different levels of intensity and duration. It also illustrates the interdependence between spaces and objects in relation to the child’s movements during SI therapy process.

The operations of movements conducted by the child were revealed by slicing the connectivity loop and its text, in which the child experiences a shift from one particular movement to the next. Following De Certeau’s proposition, the slicing of the connectivity loop results in operations that consist of possibility, effect, given, and obligation, each with certain key spatial properties. Understanding these operations becomes necessary to explore the child’s movements, his or her orientation and relation with spatial properties, which together create the topological space with its connectivity that shapes SI experience. Exploration on movement operations is also important to understand how the child’s movements relate to different spatial properties. The study of operations enables further reading of particular characteristics of spaces, such as spaces with different orientation, gaps, and paths for moving through within certain boundaries.

Layering of a scenario diagram and an operations diagram completes the whole narrative of SI activities, by presenting their connectivity. From this layered diagram, the topological space could be connected to its properties to map the topological space of the child’s SI therapy space. Through topological reading of SI therapy activities, it becomes possible to understand the spatial features required for each SI tour as a connectivity of spatial experience.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:The research was funded by Universitas Indonesia Research Grant 2012.

Author Biographies

Yandi Andri Yatmo is a professor of architecture at Universitas Indonesia. His research interest is on the development of design theory and methods.

Paramita Atmodiwirjo is a senior lecturer of architecture at Universitas Indonesia. Her research interest is on the relationship between architecture and the user, including users with special needs.

Kristanti Dewi Paramita is a lecturer of architecture at Universitas Indonesia. Her research interest is on the inquiry of spatial practice as the basis of developing architectural methods.

References

Atmodiwirjo

(2014). Space affordances, adaptive responses and sensory integration by autistic children. International Journal of Design, 8(3), 35-47.

Ayres

A. J.

(1979). Sensory integration and the child. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Campos

J. L.

Butler

J. S.

Bulthof

H. H.

(2012). Multisensory integration in the estimation of walked distances. Experimental Brain Research, 218, 551-565.

De Certeau

(1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

De Certeau

Giard

Mayol

(1998). The practice of everyday life. Volume 2: Living & cooking. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.

Devlin

(1997). Mathematics: The science of pattern. New York, NY: Scientific American Library.

Henriques

(2012). Hearing things and dancing numbers: Embodying transformation, topology at Tate Modern. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4/5), 334-342.

Kinnealey

Miller

L. J.

(1993). Sensory integration/learning disabilities. In Hopkins

H. L.

Smith

H. D.

(Eds.), Willard & Spackman’s occupational therapy (8th ed., pp. 474-489). Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott.

Koopman

(2008). Cutting through topologies: Crossing lines at the school of the Americas. Antipode, 40, 825-847.

10.

Leatherbarrow

(2012). Disorientation and disclosure. Interstices, 12, 93-104.

11.

Lury

(2013). Topological sense-making: Walking the Mobius Strip from cultural topology to topological culture. Space and Culture, 16, 128-132.

12.

Lynn

(2011). Fold, bodies and blobs. Brussels, Belgium: La Lettre Volee.

13.

Messbauer

(2008). Multisensory environments: A protocol for autism. Retrieved from http://www.lmessbauer.com

14.

Ming

(2007). Prevalence of motor impairment in autism spectrum disorders. Brain & Development, 29, 565-570.

15.

Moustafa

(2008). An architecture of autism: Concept of design intervention for the autistic user. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 189-211.

16.

O’Doherty

D. P.

(2013). Off-road and spaced-out in the city: Organization and the interruption of topology. Space and Culture, 16, 211-228.

17.

Paron-Wildes

A. J.

(2005). Sensory stimulation and autistic children. Implications, 6(4), 1-4.

18.

Psarra

(2009). Architecture and narrative: The formation of space and cultural meaning. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

19.

Roley

S. S.

Jacobs

(2008). Sensory integration. In Crepeau

E. B.

Cohn

E. S.

Schell

B. A. B.

(Eds.). Willard and Spackman’s occupational therapy (11th ed., pp. 792-817). Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

20.

Scalbert

(1999). Towards a formless architecture: The house of the future by A+P Smithson. Archis, 9, 34-47.

21.

Shields

(2012). Cultural topology: The seven bridges of Königsburg, 1736. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4/5), 43-57.

22.

Siaperas

Ring

H. A.

McAllister

C. J.

Henderson

Barnett

Watson

Holland

A. J.

(2012). Atypical movement performance and sensory integration in Asperger’s syndrome. Journal of Autism Development Disorder, 42, 718-725.

23.

Smith

D. J.

(2001). Interior architecture as a storied life: Narrative-research and the built environment. IDEA Journal, 1(2), 24-35.

24.

Teysott

(2013). A topology of everyday constellations. Cambridge: MIT Press.

25.

Tuan

Y. F.

(1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

26.

Vincenta

Sachs

(2010). Outdoor environments for children with autism and special needs. Implications,9(1), 1-8.

27.

Williamson

G. G.

Anzalone

M. E.

Hanft

B. E.

(2000). Assessment of sensory processing, praxis, and motor performance. In Interdisciplinary Council on Development and Learning (Ed.), Clinical practice guidelines: Redefining the standards of care for infants, children and families with special needs (pp. 155-184). Bethesda, MA: Interdisciplinary Council on Development and Learning.