Systematic review of sensory processing in preterm children reveals abnormal sensory modulation, somatosensory processing and sensory-based motor processing

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.Peer reviewe

Sensory over-responsivity: parent report, direct assessment measures, and neural architecture

BACKGROUND: Sensory processing difficulties are common across neurodevelopmental disorders. Thus, reliable measures are needed to understand the biological underpinnings of these differences. This study aimed to define a scoring methodology specific to auditory (AOR) and tactile (TOR) over-responsivity. Second, in a pilot cohort using MRI Diffusion Tensor Imaging, we performed a proof of concept study of whether children with AOR showed measurable differences in their white matter integrity. METHODS: This study included children with AOR and TOR from a mixed neurodevelopmental disorder cohort including autism and sensory processing dysfunction (n = 176) as well as neurotypical children (n = 128). We established cohorts based on sensory over-responsivity using parent report (Short Sensory Profile (SSP)) and direct assessment (Sensory Processing-Three Dimensions: Assessment (SP-3D:A)) measures. With a subset of the children (n = 39), group comparisons, based on AOR phenotype, were conducted comparing the white matter fractional anisotropy in 23 regions of interest. RESULTS: Using direct assessment, 31% of the children with neurodevelopmental disorders had AOR and 27% had TOR. The inter-test agreement between SSP and SP-3D:A for AOR was 65% and TOR was 50%. Children with AOR had three white matter tracts showing decreased fractional anisotropy relative to children without AOR. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified cut-off scores for AOR and TOR using the SSP parent report and SP-3D:A observation. A combination of questionnaire and direct observation measures should be used in clinical and research settings. The SSP parent report and SP-3D:A direct observation ratings overlapped moderately for sensory related behaviors. Based on these preliminary structural neuroimaging results, we suggest a putative neural network may contribute to AOR