Abstract Aim Preterm birth poses concerns in daily functioning and behaviour in childhood, possibly connected to sensory processing disorder. This review aimed to systematically identify assessments, incidence and nature of sensory processing disorder in preterm‐born infants and children. Methods We searched literature through CINAHL‐EBSCOhost, Cochrane, Ovid/PsychINFO, PubMed/Medline, Scopus and Google Scholar, published until November 2018. We included electronically available, peer‐reviewed studies of preterm‐born children that applied standardised sensory processing assessments. We excluded studies of preterm‐born children with major neurodevelopmental impairments. Results We identified 27 studies of premature children, aged from birth to 9 years 7 months. The assessments represented three versions of Sensory Profile questionnaires and three clinical tests, Test of Sensory Functions in Infants, the Miller Assessment for Preschoolers, and the Sensory Integration and Praxis Test. The studies revealed wide variation of atypical sensory processing: 28%‐87% in sensory modulation, 9%‐70% in somatosensory processing and 20%‐70% in sensory‐based motor processing. Conclusion Preterm‐born children exhibited elevated risk for sensory processing disorder from infancy into school age. Routine screening of sensory processing, intervention intervals and parental consultations should be considered in ameliorating sensory processing and neurocognitive development. Moreover, a larger body of intervention studies is needed.

Abstract There is emerging empirical evidence indicating that differences in self‐reported sensory processing may be associated with differences in levels of stress in the adult populations. Understanding how sensory processing relates to stress is of clinical relevance, given the well‐established impact of stress on physical health, mental health and well‐being. Although several studies have examined the association between sensory processing and stress in adult populations, no published reviews have systematically summarised and synthesised these findings. We aimed to fill this gap by conducting a systematic review to synthesise the available evidence examining the association between self‐reported sensory processing and self‐reported measures of stress in the adult population. The review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA‐S) checklist. Twenty studies were included in the final review. Quality assessment was conducted with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Overall, the evidence is strong for an association between differences in sensory processing and self‐reported stress in adults. This association was found across a range of populations and measures of stress, in cross‐sectional studies. The most commonly used measure of sensory processing was the Highly Sensitive Person Scale, which was consistently moderately associated with a range of measures of stress. The quality of the included studies was generally good, with most meeting four or five out of five criteria. Longitudinal studies are lacking. There is strong evidence for a cross‐sectional association between sensory processing and stress in an adult population. Further research, in particular longitudinal studies and studies including clinical populations, would be of benefit in order to establish causality.

Abstract Background The way we perceive our environment is driven by our sensory nervous system and our attentional resources. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. While cognitive and behavior dysfunctions have broadly been investigated, sensory processing has received less scientific attention. It has been shown, that children with ADHD show processing and modulatory deficits in multiple sensory domains, but very few studies examine to what extent these deficits persist in adult life. We conducted a systematic review of studies investigating sensory processing in adult ADHD. Main Body Using the keywords ‘ADHD’ and ‘sensory processing’, Web of Science and MEDLINE database were systematically searched for all articles published up to March 2020. 53 studies were included. Mostly, visual and auditory processing are studied, few investigated multisensory audiovisual and somatosensory processing. In summary, adult ADHD is marked by increased sensory gaining and deficient sensory inhibition. These disturbed gaining and inhibitory mechanisms were most prominent in the auditory modality but also visual modality impairment in terms of stimuli modulation were evident. Electrophysiological studies show alterations across all event-related potential (ERP) components associated with distractibility at early components (bottom-up) and inhibition and stimulus discrimination at later components (top-down). Brain imaging studies on sensory processing in ADHD are scarce, few pointing to higher resting state functional connectivity in visual areas and visual crossmodal activation for auditory stimuli. Conclusion Sensory processing deficits extent from childhood to adult ADHD. These deficits are mainly driven by higher distractibility by irrelevant stimuli and modulatory impairment for relevant stimuli. In future studies, the relation of impaired bottom-up and top-down attentional mechanisms should be investigated and how they contribute to sensory processing deficits and clinical symptomatology in adult ADHD. This could help to gather more information about the underling processing deficits, so that specific adjusted training can be provided, that helps to overcome deficits in daily life functioning in e.g., not producing appropriate adaptive responses in social settings. Trial registration N/A

<h4>Background</h4>Although sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) has been extensively studied in the context of psychological health, its potential association with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) remains poorly understood.<h4>Objective</h4>This study used the Chinese version of the Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) Scale to assess sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) levels and the prevalence of highly sensitive persons (HSPs) in a DGBI cohort. Using propensity score matching (PSM), it aimed to compare these metrics between DGBI patients and healthy controls and to evaluate the discriminative capacity of SPS for DGBI. Additionally, SPS and HSP distribution were compared across DGBI subgroups categorized by upper versus lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptom predominance.<h4>Methods</h4>SPS levels were assessed using the validated Chinese Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS-C). Covariate balance was achieved through 1:1 PSM. Intergroup disparities were examined using independent samples *<i>t</i>*-tests and <i>χ²</i> analyses, supplemented by the binary logistic regression analysis and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.<h4>Results</h4>Post-PSM analysis (254 matched pairs) revealed significantly higher total SPS scores in the DGBI group versus controls (<i>p</i> < 0.001), with a substantially greater HSP prevalence (42.5% vs. 17.3%; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant differences in SPS levels or HSP distribution between patients with upper and lower gastrointestinal DGBI (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Ease of excitation (EOE; OR = 1.403, 95% CI: 1.110-1.773) and depth of processing (DOP; OR = 1.315, 95% CI: 1.044-1.657) emerged as independent DGBI risk factors. ROC analysis showed a moderate discriminative capacity for DGBI identification (AUC = 0.705, 95% CI: 0.660-0.750).<h4>Conclusion</h4>Elevated SPS levels are significantly associated with DGBI. However, the subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in SPS levels or HSP distribution between patients with upper and lower gastrointestinal DGBI. Early identification of HSP characteristics may nevertheless facilitate personalized interventions, supporting the integration of SPS assessment into DGBI diagnostic and management frameworks.

Differences in visual sensory sensitivity/reactivity are documented in autism and ADHD. Measuring these differences could guide interventions and accommodations, improving quality of life. No current self-report questionnaires focus specifically on the range of affective and behavioural responses to visual stimuli reported in autism and ADHD. This study aimed to develop such a measure (ViPro-SR) for neurodivergent adults. Using online survey responses, psychometric properties of ViPro-SR were assessed, including factor structure, gender-related measurement invariance, internal consistency reliability and validity. An 11-item, stable 3-factor solution was derived, with factors representing: hypersensitivity to contrast, detail focus, and peripheral vision activation. Internal consistency reliability was satisfactory for the total scale (ω = 0.85) and each subscale (ω > 0.70). Evidence towards convergent validity of ViPro-SR was provided through highly significant, moderate to strong correlations with existing sensory measures. Discriminative validity was supported by significant differences in ViPro-SR total scores between autistic/ADHD groups and a not autistic/ADHD comparison group. ViPro-SR is a psychometrically sound instrument, currently recommended for subscale-level scoring, that could inform visual sensory accommodations and contribute to a research toolkit.<h4>Supplementary information</h4>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-026-09409-7.