Parental sensory processing patterns and parenting: a systematic review

1 Introduction

Parenting unfolds in a sensory-rich context, from the many new sensations related to pregnancy, to infant crying, close physical contact, and the unpredictability of daily routines. Because the sensory load of parenting is high (Branjerdporn et al., 2019), parents' sensory processing patterns [i.e., how an individual's nervous system uniquely receives, interprets, and responds to internal and external sensory input (Grobelna et al., 2024)] may shape not only parenting behaviors and parent–child interactions, but also parental psychological wellbeing, stress, and emotion regulation—factors that are central to children's social and emotional development (Branjerdporn et al., 2019). Although studies have examined associations between parental sensory processing and parenting characteristics [e.g., parental-child attachment (Branjerdporn et al., 2020, 2021), parenting styles (Branjerdporn et al., 2019), parental behavior (Bratko and Butković, 2003; Good et al., 2012), and parenting experiences (Turner et al., 2012)], these findings have not been systematically reviewed.

1.1 Sensory processing frameworks

“Sensory processing” refers to noticing, interpreting, and responding to sensory information (e.g., sound, touch, movement, and visual stimuli) (Grobelna et al., 2024). “Sensory processing patterns” are typically considered to be trait-like individual differences that influence how intensely environmental (external) or bodily (internal) stimuli are experienced and how individuals may regulate their responses in everyday contexts, including parenting (Grobelna et al., 2024; Weyn et al., 2025). Sensory processing patterns are commonly examined through one or more established theoretical frameworks, each employing its own unique terminology to distinguish between different sensory processing patterns. Five of these frameworks are summarized below.

• The Miller Model of sensory processing (Miller et al., 2007) proposes a diagnostic framework that identifies categories of sensory modulation and sensory processing disorders and uses the terms “sensory over-responsivity” (SOR), “sensory under-responsivity” (SUR), and “sensory craving.”
• Dunn's model of sensory processing (Dunn and Brown, 1997) categorizes individual differences in sensory processing into four distinct patterns (“sensory sensitivity,” “sensory avoidance,” “low registration,” and “sensory seeking”) by considering neurological threshold (low threshold to high threshold) and behavioral responses (passive to active) as intersecting continua.
• Aron and Aron's highly sensitive person (HSP) theory (Aron and Aron, 1997) describes “sensory processing sensitivity” (SPS) as a heritable, cross-species trait experienced by approximately 20%−30% of the population, that includes a heightened awareness of environmental subtleties, processing depth, emotional reactivity, and propensity for sensory overwhelm (Aron et al., 2012; Bräm Dubé et al., 2020; Assary et al., 2021).
• Ayre's sensory integration (ASI) theory (Ayres, 1972) focuses on the ways in which sensory information is integrated into the nervous system, and explains sensory integration as a neurological process, which, if disrupted, may pose challenges to learning, behavior, motor coordination, and daily functioning.
• Zuckerman's theory of sensation seeking describes people's propensity to actively seek optimal sensory stimulation, which may be through high adrenaline or risky behaviors (Zuckerman et al., 1964; Zuckerman, 1972).

For the purpose of this review, the various terms used to describe sensory processing patterns were consolidated under three broad sensory processing categories: (1) “Sensory Over Responsivity” (SOR); (2) “Sensory Under Responsivity” (SUR); and (3) “Sensory Seeking” (SS; see Figure 1). The authors acknowledge that consolidating findings in this manner may obscure some of the finer distinctions made within each theoretical framework. However, using these overarching categories was considered necessary for improving clarity, facilitating interdisciplinary interpretation, and enabling the inclusion of a wider range of studies, while still reporting on subgroup analyses between distinct sensory processing measures within each of the three overarching categories.

1.1.1 Sensory over responsivity (SOR)

Within this review, the related but distinct constructs of sensitivity (namely, Dunn's “sensory sensitivity” and “sensory avoidance,” Aron and Aron's HSP/SPS, and Miller's SOR) were synthesized under a single higher-order category representing low sensory thresholds [“Sensory Over Responsivity” (SOR)], while recognizing that each captures different facets of sensory sensitivity. This approach was strengthened by prior evidence demonstrating areas of convergence across frameworks, alongside their clear distinctions. For example, several studies have shown that the low neurological-threshold patterns on the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (AASP; “sensory avoidance” and “sensory sensitivity”) are significantly positively correlated with SPS measured using the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) (Meredith et al., 2016; Turjeman-Levi and Kluger, 2022; Wang et al., 2022); the distinction between the two measures being that the AASP emphasizes behavioral responses, whereas the HSPS emphasizes emotional responses (Turjeman-Levi and Kluger, 2022).

1.1.2 Sensory under responsivity (SUR)

The second umbrella term used within this review, “Sensory Under Responsivity” (SUR), includes Dunn's “low registration,” and Miller's sensory under-responsivity, capturing individuals that have high sensory thresholds who exhibit passive or reduced behavioral responses to sensory stimulation.

1.1.3 Sensory seeking (SS)

Similarly, Dunn's “sensory seeking,” Miller's “sensory craving,” and Zuckerman's “sensation seeking,” were grouped under the overarching category of “Sensory Seeking”, capturing individuals characterized by high sensory thresholds and corresponding active engagement with sensory stimulation. There are differences in how sensory seeking is defined across models—such as threshold-driven seeking in Dunn's AASP, compared to the risk-oriented sensation seeking in Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS). This categorization is used strictly for clarity associated with the reporting of the findings of this review, with full acknowledgment that these subtypes represent theoretically and behaviorally distinct forms of seeking.

1.2 Associations between sensory processing, mental wellbeing, parenting, and attachment

A growing body of research indicates that sensory processing patterns are closely intertwined with both mental wellbeing and parenting experiences. Individual differences in sensory responsivity arise through a combination of genetic and environmental influences, contributing to the development of characteristic patterns of sensitivity, reactivity, or registration that tend to remain relatively stable across the lifespan (Van Hulle et al., 2018; Kalig-Amir et al., 2019; Assary et al., 2021; Branjerdporn et al., 2021). These sensory patterns play an important role not only in how individuals perceive and navigate their environments, but also in how they manage emotional and physiological arousal.

Difficulties regulating responses to everyday sensory input—whether through heightened sensitivity or reduced responsiveness—have been consistently linked to elevated distress, including symptoms of depression (Liss et al., 2005), anxiety (Engel-Yeger and Dunn, 2011; Levit-Binnun et al., 2014), and psychological distress (Meredith et al., 2016). Such associations are theorized to emerge because sensory responsivity influences an individual's capacity to modulate internal states in the face of routine environmental demands: when sensory input is experienced as overwhelming, the ability to maintain emotional equilibrium may be compromised (Uygun et al., 2025).

These connections extend into the domain of interpersonal functioning, particularly within close relationships. Sensory processing patterns have been linked with adult attachment styles (Levit-Binnun et al., 2014; Meredith et al., 2016; Branjerdporn et al., 2021; Kerley et al., 2023), which shape how individuals regulate emotions in relational contexts, and respond to the needs of others (Vrtička and Vuilleumier, 2012; Eilert and Buchheim, 2023; Domic-Siede et al., 2024). Attachment, in turn, is deeply embedded within parenting, influencing caregiver sensitivity and behavioral consistency (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2019b; O'Neill et al., 2021). A caregiver's attachment orientation has been repeatedly associated with child developmental outcomes, including emotional security, regulation, and resilience (Sroufe et al., 2005; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2019b; Nivison et al., 2026). Understanding these pathways is therefore critical for contextualizing how sensory responsivity may shape parenting experiences and child outcomes.

1.3 Conceptualization of parenting

Parenting can be described as the nurturance of a child during their active development by a parent or parental figure, to provide for their basic needs and support their growth and learning (Uba and Jain, 2019). Parenting beliefs and practices vary widely, as cultural traditions, social contexts, and individual experiences all shape how caregivers understand their role and what they view as effective or appropriate parenting (Taraban and Shaw, 2018). For this review, parenting is examined within two domains: (1) parents' personal perceptions and emotions (i.e., their internal experiences) and (2) their parenting behaviors and engagement in daily caregiving activities (i.e., their external practices).

1.3.1 Parenting perceptions and experiences

It has been suggested that the way a parent perceives their parenting experiences and their own attributes as a parent is related to their parental wellbeing and quality of life (Nelson et al., 2014; Minnes et al., 2015) as well as their parenting behaviors, child-related outcomes (Aron et al., 2019; Florean et al., 2025), and the parent–child relationship (Mancini et al., 2023). In a study by Mancini et al. (2023) higher paternal self-compassion was associated with fewer negative emotions, reduced parenting stress, and higher paternal self-efficacy. In the same study, parenting stress mediated the relationship between paternal self-compassion and paternal-child attachment (Mancini et al., 2023).

Attachment styles describe the observable patterns of interaction and behavior exhibited within relationships and can be categorized as either secure or insecure (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979). Secure adult attachment (where an individual has a balanced assurance of their inherent self-worth and others' reliability) has been associated with positive parenting practices, such as warmth and responsiveness (Jones et al., 2015). Insecure adult attachment styles (where an individual either experiences discomfort with emotional intimacy and prioritizes self-reliance [avoidant attachment], or experiences fear of emotional unavailability and exhibits a tendency toward over-reliance on others' validation of their self-worth [anxious attachment] (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979)) have been associated with lower parental responsiveness, harsh discipline, child maltreatment, heightened parenting stress, and decreased parental wellbeing (Jones et al., 2014; Bahmani et al., 2023).

1.3.2 Parenting behaviors and practices

The behaviors of parents, and the manner in which they convey their attitudes and emotions toward their children, are central to shaping their parenting practices and the broader caregiving environment (Robinson et al., 1995). Broadly, parenting approaches are commonly described using Baumrind's influential typology of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive styles, which differ across dimensions of warmth/responsiveness and control/demandingness (Baumrind, 1978; Robinson et al., 1995). These parenting styles are known to guide how parents respond to child cues, manage behavior, and structure the emotional climate of the home. However, researchers have long noted that parenting practices are not uniform across developmental periods; for example, parents of infants may place greater emphasis on nurturance, predictability, and involvement, reflecting the heightened dependency needs characteristic of early development (Arnott and Brown, 2013).

The sensory features associated with the various stages of parenting, including pregnancy (e.g., pregnancy-related nausea and the sensation of a baby's kicks), infancy (e.g., babies' cries, smells associated with nappies and waste, and noisy toys), and childhood (e.g., noisy and active play, mealtime-associated mess) (Talcer et al., 2023), as well as with day-to-day caregiving (e.g., auditory stimulation, cluttered spaces, physical proximity, competing demands) may interact with these sensory patterns in ways that influence behavioral consistency, emotional regulation, wellbeing, and responsiveness (Pirmohamed, 2024; Sperati et al., 2025). Theoretical literature also suggests several plausible mechanisms through which sensory processing may shape parenting. For instance, adults with atypical sensory thresholds may experience routine parenting tasks as more stimulating or overwhelming, which could influence their capacity for attunement, behavioral regulation, or flexibility during high-demand interactions (Branjerdporn et al., 2019; Pirmohamed, 2024; Passaquindici et al., 2025; Sperati et al., 2025).

1.4 The present review

The significance of parenting characteristics for both parent- and child-related outcomes suggests the importance of understanding additional associated factors, such as parental sensory processing. Given the multisensory nature of parenting, it is unsurprising that evidence for the relationships between parental sensory processing and parenting characteristics has been growing. Recent studies have found associations between parental sensory processing sensitivity and both an anxious parenting style and adult attachment anxiety (Branjerdporn et al., 2024), parental sensory seeking, positive pregnancy experiences and parental feelings of bonding with their unborn child (Grahame et al., 2024), as well as parental sensory processing patterns, parents' experience of sensory challenges and parental self-efficacy (Turner et al., 2012). In response to the expanding presence of primary research pertaining to the associations between parental sensory processing and parenting characteristics, a systematic review was conducted to address the question: what are the known associations between parental sensory processing and parenting characteristics? Addressing this question will help inform the use of sensory approaches with parents, especially in situations where parents' atypical sensory profiles may shape their children's development.

2 Methods

2.1 Study design

This systematic review was reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021) and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024490846).

2.2 Participants

Eligible studies included parents (biological, adoptive, foster, expectant, or caregivers of children aged ≤ 18 years). With acknowledgment to the high co-occurrence of clinical sensory processing disorders and neurodivergence, studies involving parents diagnosed with or self-identifying as having Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) were excluded. Further information regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Search strategy and inclusion criteria.

^*The inclusion and exclusion criteria pertaining to the parents' neurotype (i.e., if they were reported to be diagnosed with, or self-identify as Autistic [a person with Autism Spectrum Disorder] and/or a person with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) were introduced after the completion of the literature search. This amendment was considered necessary to narrow the scope of the review due to the large number of studies initially deemed eligible.

AASP, adolescent/adult sensory profile; ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; ASD, autism spectrum disorder; HSPS, highly sensitive person scale; SPS, sensory processing sensitivity; SSS, sensation seeking scale; SPQ, sensory perception quotient; QST, quantitative sensory testing.

2.3 Interventions

Studies were included if they investigated parental sensory processing (e.g., SPS, AASP patterns, sensory responsivity, and sensory seeking) and its association with any parenting-related outcome (e.g., parenting behaviors, stress, perceptions, attachment, and parent–child interaction).

2.4 Comparators

Included studies were synthesized based on reported associations between parental sensory processing and parenting-related outcomes. No formal comparators were utilized or defined.

2.5 Systematic review protocol

The methodology adhered to PRISMA and followed a protocol registered in PROSPERO. Procedures included: utilizing clearly defined inclusion/exclusion criteria, employing independent multireviewer screening, appraising the quality and risk of bias of the included studies using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool (Harrison et al., 2021), extracting data using a predefined template, and using narrative and thematic synthesis as informed by heterogeneity across included studies (Popay et al., 2006; Thomas and Harden, 2008; Harrison et al., 2021).

2.6 Search strategy

A preliminary literature search informed the final search strategy, which included relevant keywords combined using Boolean operators derived in consultation with an academic librarian, who specialized in allied healthcare research (see Table 1 for examples of search terms and inclusion criteria; see Supplemental Table 1 for full search strategy). The following databases were selected for their relevance to healthcare and psychosocial topics: Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycNET. Databases were initially searched in February 2024 for relevant primary research published since inception. Pertinent journals and reference lists of included articles were manually searched for relevant articles. Database and hand-searches were replicated in September 2024, November 2024, and finally in February 2026 to ensure recency of relevant evidence.

2.7 Data sources

Data were sourced from the above databases and from manual citation searching. All retrieved citations were imported into Covidence (2024), which was used for duplicate removal, screening, and data management.

2.8 Study selection, data extraction, and analysis

Articles were first screened at the title and abstract stage against review inclusion criteria surrounding parenting outcomes and parent-specific sensory processing measures (see Table 1 for inclusion criteria), and, if successful, were screened at the full-text stage against the same criteria. All articles were independently screened by the first author, and the role of the second screener was shared among the remaining authors at the title and abstract and full-text stages.

Two review authors independently assessed the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS) (Harrison et al., 2021) tool. Discrepancies in QuADS scores were discussed between reviewers until consensus was reached. The QuADS was selected as it has been demonstrated to have strong interrater reliability, and face and content validity when used to assess the quality of multimethod studies within a systematic review of healthcare-related research (Harrison et al., 2021). As per QuADS guidelines (Harrison et al., 2021), no articles were excluded based on their score. Rather, QuADS scores for each criterion were considered while interpreting the studies' findings. Descriptive quality groupings of “low” (≤13 out of a possible 39 points), “medium” (14-29/39) and “high” (30+) were utilized to contextualize the results of the quality appraisal and were presented alongside score distributions (Dew et al., 2025). Data extraction was completed independently by two review authors based on a predefined data extraction sheet, who discussed any discrepancies until consensus was reached. Extracted data (e.g., study details, participant demographics, and relevant key findings) from included studies were tabulated to aid data analysis. Data were analyzed using narrative summary and thematic synthesis methods due to the high heterogeneity of the included studies' designs (Popay et al., 2006; Thomas and Harden, 2008; Harrison et al., 2021).

3 Results

3.1 PRISMA flow diagram

In total, database and manual searches generated 7,564 potential records after duplicates were removed. Following title and abstract screening, 81 articles proceeded to full-text screening. Altogether, 24 articles met review criteria and were included in this review (see Figure 2 for the PRISMA flow diagram).

3.2 Quality appraisal and risk of bias

The QuADS quality appraisal scores of the included articles ranged from 29 (Nieto et al., 2024; Passaquindici et al., 2025) to 38 (Nicolson et al., 2022) out of a possible 39 points (M = 33.48; 85.84%), suggesting that the studies were of a medium to high standard (see Table 2 for QuADS scores). Two studies scored 29 points (Nieto et al., 2024; Passaquindici et al., 2025), correlating with a “medium quality” designation (Dew et al., 2025). The remaining 22 studies scored 30 points or higher, corresponding to a “high quality” designation (Dew et al., 2025). At least 90% of included articles scored full points for theoretical rationale, clear aim/s, data collection rationale, justification for data analysis, and appropriateness of data analysis method/s. To varying degrees, the methodological designs of three studies could have been altered to better suit their aim/s (Good et al., 2012; Branjerdporn et al., 2019; Passaquindici et al., 2025). Eight studies could have benefited from additional detail to improve methodological transparency, particularly regarding study setting and population, recruitment, and data collection procedures (Bratko and Butković, 2003; Welters-Davis and Mische Lawson, 2011; Good et al., 2012; Gafni-Lachter et al., 2022; Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023; Branjerdporn et al., 2024; Nieto et al., 2024; Passaquindici et al., 2025). Only five studies received points for evidencing research stakeholder consultation regarding study design or processes (Welters-Davis and Mische Lawson, 2011; Good et al., 2012; Turner et al., 2012; Wachs, 2013; Nicolson et al., 2022).

Table 2. Quality assessment of diverse studies (QuADS) scores.

Rating scale of 0-3. The QuADS reviewer checklist items are as follows: 1 = Theoretical or conceptual underpinning to the research; 2 = Statement of research aim/s; 3 = Clear description of research setting and target population; 4 = The study design is appropriate to address the stated research aim/s; 5 = Appropriate sampling to address the research aim/s; 6 = Rationale for choice of data collection tool/s; 7 = The format and content of data collection tool is appropriate to address the stated research aim/s; 8 = Description of data collection procedure; 9 = Recruitment data provided; 10 = Justification for analytic method selected; 11 = The method of analysis was appropriate to answer the research aim/s; 12 = Evidence that the research stakeholders have been considered in research design or conduct; 13 = Strengths and limitations critically discussed (Harrison et al., 2021).

3.3 Study characteristics

All articles were published between 2003 and 2026 (see Table 3 for all study characteristics). Studies were conducted in the United States of America (n = 6) (Welters-Davis and Mische Lawson, 2011; Aron et al., 2012; Good et al., 2012; Turner et al., 2012; Wachs, 2013; Wang et al., 2016), Australia (n = 5) (Branjerdporn et al., 2019, 2020, 2021; Nicolson et al., 2022; Branjerdporn et al., 2024), Israel (n = 4) (Acevedo et al., 2014; Goldberg and Scharf, 2020; Gafni-Lachter et al., 2022; Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023; Goldberg and Zibenberg, 2024), Italy (n = 2) (Lionetti et al., 2025; Passaquindici et al., 2025), the United Kingdom (n = 1) (Uljarević et al., 2016), Spain (n = 1) (Nieto et al., 2024), China (n = 1) (Yan et al., 2024), Croatia (n = 1) (Bratko and Butković, 2003), Hong Kong (n = 1) (Gao et al., 2024), and the Netherlands (n = 1) (Andeweg et al., 2024). One study involved participants who originated and/or resided in the continents of North America, South America, Asia, Europe, Africa, and Oceania (Lagarrigue et al., 2025). Most of the study designs were cross-sectional survey designs (n = 18) (Bratko and Butković, 2003; Welters-Davis and Mische Lawson, 2011; Wachs, 2013; Uljarević et al., 2016; Aron et al., 2019; Branjerdporn et al., 2019, 2020; Goldberg and Scharf, 2020; Branjerdporn et al., 2021; Gafni-Lachter et al., 2022; Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023; Branjerdporn et al., 2024; Gao et al., 2024; Goldberg and Zibenberg, 2024; Nieto et al., 2024; Yan et al., 2024; Lagarrigue et al., 2025; Passaquindici et al., 2025), two were longitudinal studies (n = 2) (Wang et al., 2016; Lionetti et al., 2025), two were randomized controlled trials (n = 2) (Nicolson et al., 2022; Andeweg et al., 2024), one utilized mixed-methods (n = 1) (Good et al., 2012), and one study was qualitative (n = 1) (Turner et al., 2012).

Table 3. Characteristics of included studies, n = 24.

AASP, adolescent/adult sensory profile; ACE, adverse childhood experiences questionnaire; ADHD, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; AES, aesthetic sensitivity; ASD, Autism Spectrum Disorder; ATQ-OS, adult temperament questionnaire—orienting sensitivity subscale (modified); CHAOS, confusion, hubbub, and order scale; COPM, Canadian occupational performance measure; CTS-PC, conflict tactics scale—Parent–Child version; DSM-5, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition; EAS, emotional availability scales; ECR-S, experiences in close relationships scale; EOE, ease of excitation; EMQ, experience of motherhood questionnaire; FFMQ-SF, five facet mindfulness questionnaire—short form; HADS, hospital anxiety and depression scale; HSPS, highly sensitive person scale; IOU, intolerance of uncertainty scale; IPSQ, infancy parenting styles questionnaire; LST, low sensory threshold; MAAS, Maternal antenatal attachment scale, MFA, maternal-fetal attachment; MHI-38, mental health inventory-38; MPAS, maternal postnatal attachment scale; MSPSS, multidimensional scale of perceived social support; NBO, newborn behavioral observations; NSS, noise sensitivity scale; PSI, parenting stress index; PHQ-4, patient health questionnaire-4; PERS, parent emotion regulation scale; PSE, parental self-efficacy questionnaire; PSDQ, parenting styles and dimensions questionnaire; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SES, socio-economic status; SPS/SP, sensory processing sensitivity/sensory processing; SRQ-IS, sensory responsiveness questionnaire— intensity scale; SSS, sensation seeking scale; SOR, sensory over-responsivity; SUR, sensation under-responsivity; WPI, Weinberger parenting inventory.

3.4 Participant characteristics

Sample sizes ranged from four (Turner et al., 2012) to 867 (Aron et al., 2019) participants. This systematic review included 4,957 parental participants in total. Approximately 90% of participants were women, most of whom were Caucasian, aged 30–40 years, multiparous, tertiary educated and partnered. Parents within two studies had previously disclosed mental health conditions (Good et al., 2012; Nicolson et al., 2022), and in two separate studies, reported previously understood and/or identified sensory challenges in the absence of any reported neurodivergent diagnoses (Turner et al., 2012; Aron et al., 2019). The studies included parents of children spanning a broad range of age groups, including fetuses (n = 3), infants (n = 1), toddlers (n = 3), preschoolers (n = 2), primary-aged children (n = 6), and adolescents (n = 6). The remaining papers included parents of children of wide age ranges, spanning across toddlers, preschoolers, and/or primary school-aged children (n = 3). While the majority of the included studies included parents of typically developing children, others included parents of autistic children (Uljarević et al., 2016; Nieto et al., 2024), children with previously disclosed sensory challenges (Turner et al., 2012), or ADHD (Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023).

3.5 Sensory processing measures

The sensory processing measures chosen by authors of included studies varied according to the underlying sensory theory employed (see Table 3 for a list of sensory processing measures used within each study). Authors of 13 studies measured parental sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) using the 11-, 12-, or 27-item Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) (Wachs, 2013; Uljarević et al., 2016; Aron et al., 2019; Branjerdporn et al., 2019; Goldberg and Scharf, 2020; Nicolson et al., 2022; Branjerdporn et al., 2024; Gao et al., 2024; Goldberg and Zibenberg, 2024; Yan et al., 2024; Lagarrigue et al., 2025; Lionetti et al., 2025; Passaquindici et al., 2025). One study utilized the adult temperament questionnaire orienting sensitivity subscale (ATQ-OS) (Andeweg et al., 2024), and two used the noise sensitivity scale (NSS) (Wachs, 2013; Andeweg et al., 2024). The Adolescent and Adult Sensory Profile (AASP) was used in seven studies to identify parents' sensory processing patterns as per Dunn's framework (Welters-Davis and Mische Lawson, 2011; Good et al., 2012; Turner et al., 2012; Branjerdporn et al., 2020, 2021; Gafni-Lachter et al., 2022; Nieto et al., 2024). Authors of two studies measured parental sensation seeking using Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS): either the brief version or the Croatian translation (Bratko and Butković, 2003; Wang et al., 2016). The authors of the remaining study reported maternal sensory processing in Miller's terms of sensory over-responsivity or sensory under-responsivity using the Sensory Responsiveness Questionnaire (SRQ)—Intensity Scale (Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023).

Among the included studies, the measures used to assess parenting characteristics were highly varied and have been listed in Table 3. Measures were selected based on the specific parenting characteristics the authors sought to assess and pertained to parenting behaviors and practices, or parenting perceptions and experiences.

3.6 Synthesized findings

Key findings regarding the associations between parental sensory processing and parenting characteristics, summarized in Table 4, are discussed in the following two categories: (1) parenting perceptions and experiences and (2) parenting behaviors and practices.

Table 4. Summary of review findings.

3.6.1 Parenting perceptions and experiences

3.6.1.1 Sensory over responsivity (SOR)

Across the reviewed studies, SOR was consistently associated with more negative cognitive-emotional experiences of parenting. Parents with heightened SOR frequently reported elevated emotional distress, including anxiety, depressive symptoms, difficulty managing emotions, and a greater sense of overwhelm in daily parenting contexts (Good et al., 2012; Uljarević et al., 2016; Nicolson et al., 2022; Branjerdporn et al., 2024; Nieto et al., 2024; Passaquindici et al., 2025). Among expatriate mothers, however, higher SOR was associated with greater maternal adjustment (i.e., better coping and emotional wellbeing), whilst this interaction was absent for non-expatriate families (Lagarrigue et al., 2025). One study noted that sensory sensitivity predicted lower parental self-competence, stronger feelings of irritation, and, due to this, less favorable emotional responses to infants, particularly among new mothers (Branjerdporn et al., 2020). SOR was also linked to attachment-related vulnerabilities, wherein higher sensory sensitivity correlated with anxious and avoidant adult attachment styles (Branjerdporn et al., 2019), as well as lower quality maternal–fetal and maternal–infant attachment, even after adjusting for maternal distress (Branjerdporn et al., 2020, 2021).

Qualitative evidence further illustrated the emotional labor involved in parenting wherein SOR mothers described “surviving” sensory-intensive tasks, masking distress to protect their children, and experiencing heightened emotional tension during routines such as bathtime or bedtime (Turner et al., 2012). Collectively, SOR appears to be a robust correlate of poorer parental emotional and mental wellbeing, less favorable parent–child attachment and interactions, and difficulties engaging in caretaking tasks, particularly in high-demand or unpredictable environments.

When differentiating findings by the primary sensory processing measure used, the findings appeared consistent across attachment and mental wellbeing domains. Notably, studies that reported on attachment alongside use of the AASP linked sensory sensitivity and sensory avoidance (i.e., the domains related to lower sensory thresholds) with lower quality prenatal and postnatal attachment (Branjerdporn et al., 2020, 2021). Similar findings were reflected using the HSPS, where more sensitive parents were found to be more likely to have an insecure attachment (Branjerdporn et al., 2019). Studies that used the AASP noted that lower threshold parents were more likely to have lower self-competence (Branjerdporn et al., 2020) and higher parenting-associated anxiety (Good et al., 2012). Likewise, within studies that used the HSPS, more sensitive parents were linked with higher baseline depression and anxiety scores and maternal distress in pregnancy [as demonstrated in a high-quality randomized controlled trial by Nicolson et al. (2022)], and overwhelm during daily tasks (Uljarević et al., 2016).

3.6.1.2 Sensory under responsivity (SUR)

In contrast to SOR, the literature examining SUR in relation to parenting perceptions was more limited. SUR was associated with higher emotional distress, including parental distress, anxiety, and depression (Nieto et al., 2024). SUR was also linked to lower perceived parenting competence. Mothers of children with ADHD who exhibited higher SUR reported reduced parental self-efficacy, proposed to be due to difficulties in noticing or responding to the child's rapidly changing needs (Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023). In perinatal contexts, SUR predicted poorer maternal-fetal attachment, possibly indicating a dampened emotional connection or decreased salience of prenatal bonding experiences (Branjerdporn et al., 2021).

Qualitative accounts echoed these themes, with SUR parents describing emotional boundary strain, heightened fear during sensory-intensive interactions, and the effort required to mask distress to avoid conveying negative emotional cues to their child (Turner et al., 2012). Therefore, although less studied, SUR appears to predispose parents to emotional disconnection, reduced self-efficacy, and increased vulnerability to internal distress.

When comparing findings derived from studies using different sensory processing measures, similarities arose regarding parenting perceptions. Notably, studies using the AASP found that low registration mothers were more likely to have poorer quality maternal-fetal attachment (Branjerdporn et al., 2021) and report greater parenting-associated distress (Nieto et al., 2024). Similarly, a study using the SRQ-Intensity scale identified that mothers who were SUR were more likely to have poorer parental self-efficacy (Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023).

3.6.1.3 Sensory seeking (SS)

Findings relating to SS and parenting perceptions and experiences were sparse and generally non-significant. One study reported no relationship between SS and parenting stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms (Nieto et al., 2024). This contrasts with the stronger emotional impacts associated with SOR and, to a lesser extent, SUR. Importantly, however, maternal SS was found to predict higher quality maternal-fetal attachment, even after controlling for psychological distress (Branjerdporn et al., 2021). This suggests that SS may support heightened engagement with the novel and sensory-associated aspects of pregnancy. Overall, SS does not appear to contribute to negative emotional experiences of parenting and may, in some contexts, facilitate more positive prenatal emotional engagement. Given that both studies exploring parenting perceptions and experiences with parents who have a sensory seeking profile used the AASP, within-category comparisons (i.e., comparing the findings of studies that used different sensory processing measures) were unable to be drawn.

3.6.2 Parenting Behaviors and Practices

3.6.2.1 Sensory over responsivity (SOR)

SOR demonstrated strong and consistent associations with behaviorally reactive, less attuned, and less consistent parenting practices. Parents with elevated SOR engaged in more inconsistent parenting behaviors, higher psychological intrusiveness, and, under some conditions, harsher parenting behaviors (Goldberg and Scharf, 2020; Goldberg and Zibenberg, 2024). These behaviors were frequently mediated by anxious or avoidant attachment styles. Higher SOR was also associated with more frequent reports of parenting difficulties and hassles (Aron et al., 2019; Gafni-Lachter et al., 2022). There is varied evidence to suggest that there is an association between SOR and higher authoritarian and permissive parenting styles (Branjerdporn et al., 2019, 2024).

SOR also predicted greater behavioral vulnerability to environmental stressors. In chaotic homes, parents with low self-regulation and high SOR used harsher discipline [as found in a randomized controlled trial by Andeweg et al. (2024)], and in the context of marital conflict, SOR (particularly, parents with high “Ease of Excitation” [a subscale within the HSPS] scores) predicted same-day increases in negative parenting behaviors (Yan et al., 2024). Mothers high in SOR were less attuned in infancy when contextual risk was present; however demonstrated more adaptive parental responses (Lionetti et al., 2025). In a separate study, SOR parents were more likely to interpret infant behaviors negatively and exhibit impatience (Branjerdporn et al., 2020).

SOR has also been associated with: seeking control over environments to avoid experiences of uncertainty (Uljarević et al., 2016), lower executive functioning (Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023), and difficulty establishing new routines and engaging in daily occupations associated with unknown outcomes (Good et al., 2012). Qualitative data ratified these findings, wherein SOR parents reported difficulty maintaining behavioral composure during noisy or unpredictable interactions, and engaging in environmental structuring to reduce sensory load (Turner et al., 2012).

Studies that utilized different sensory processing measures generated similar results pertaining to parenting behaviors. When parents were determined to have low sensory thresholds via the AASP, parents were more likely to exhibit impatience and interpret their baby's behaviors negatively (Branjerdporn et al., 2020). When determining sensitivity using the HSPS, parents were more likely to be intrusive, inconsistent, harsh, and cautious (Uljarević et al., 2016; Goldberg and Scharf, 2020; Goldberg and Zibenberg, 2024). Overall, SOR was associated with controlling, intrusive, inconsistent, or rigid parenting practices, particularly under sensory intense or stressful conditions.

3.6.2.2 Sensory under responsivity (SUR)

Evidence linking SUR to parenting behaviors was modest but revealed several consistent themes. SUR parents often displayed reduced behavioral initiation or engagement, reporting difficulties motivating themselves to participate in daily caregiving tasks or needing additional sensory cues to sustain attention (Branjerdporn et al., 2021; Good et al., 2012). Qualitative evidence highlighted episodes of behavioral perseverance despite internal overwhelm, such as persisting through sensory demanding play or noisy routines (Turner et al., 2012), although these accounts often involved mixed sensory profiles. In one study, SUR was associated with better executive functioning in mothers who do not have children diagnosed with ADHD (Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023). Overall, SUR appears to influence behaviors through slowed behavioral activation and greater environmental structuring, rather than through reactivity or harshness.

Of the four studies that examined SUR in relation to parenting behaviors and practices, three employed the AASP to assess sensory thresholds, while the remaining study (Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023) examined parental SUR using the SRQ-Intensity scale. Given the methodological heterogeneity between these few studies, within-category comparisons based on the sensory processing measure used cannot be drawn with confidence.

3.6.2.3 Sensory seeking (SS)

SS demonstrated a distinct behavioral profile characterized by higher behavioral activation, greater engagement in stimulating activities, and reduced behavioral monitoring. Intergenerational findings indicated that SS parents sought responsive play and encouraged sensation seeking behaviors in their children (Bratko and Butković, 2003; Wang et al., 2016). Pregnant mothers high in SS spent more time thinking about and behaving in relation to their fetus (Branjerdporn et al., 2021). Mothers low in SS, conversely, were reported to engage in fewer shared leisure activities with children (Good et al., 2012). Additionally, maternal and child SS were jointly associated with increased daily parenting hassles (Gafni-Lachter et al., 2022), likely reflecting the energetic demands of high activation parent–child dyads. Once the child reached adolescence, however, parental SS was negatively associated with parental monitoring (Wang et al., 2016). Overall, SS shaped parenting behaviors through activation, stimulation seeking, and reduced monitoring, rather than through harshness or reactivity.

When comparing the results of studies by the sensory processing measure used, SS parents were uniformly more likely to encourage or engage in higher stimuli behaviors. Notably, it was found that fathers high in sensation seeking (as determined by the SSS) were more likely to encourage and allow sensation seeking behaviors in their children (Bratko and Butković, 2003), which was similarly suggested by a study that used the AASP, where higher sensory seeking parents were more likely to prefer and engage in responsive, active play (Welters-Davis and Mische Lawson, 2011).

4 Discussion

The aim of this systematic review was to critically synthesize evidence on the associations between parental sensory processing patterns and parenting characteristics. Across 24 studies, parental sensory processing emerged as a meaningful, though variably expressed, factor shaping both parents' internal parenting experiences and their observable caregiving behaviors. Collectively, these findings suggest that sensory processing constitutes a meaningful factor contributing to variability in parental wellbeing, attunement, and co-regulatory capacity.

4.1 SOR: Heightened sensitivity as a factor for emotional overload in caregiving

A consistent pattern across studies was that parents with Sensory Over Responsivity (SOR), including related constructs, such as high SPS or low sensory threshold patterns, reported more distress, emotional overwhelm, and challenges in the parenting role (Good et al., 2012; Uljarević et al., 2016; Nicolson et al., 2022; Branjerdporn et al., 2024; Nieto et al., 2024; Passaquindici et al., 2025) compared to SUR or SS parents. These findings are unsurprising when considered alongside established evidence that heightened sensory sensitivity is associated with increased trait and state anxiety, depression, elevated negative affectivity, and risk for internalizing symptoms in adults generally (Liss et al., 2005; Ahadi and Basharpoor, 2010), alongside the relationship between adult SOR and high emotionality (Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023) and attunement to subtleties (Slagt et al., 2018). Emerging evidence suggests that heightened sensory responsivity is associated with, and may interact with, adult attachment orientations, particularly in contexts of insecure attachment and emotional regulation difficulties (Montoya-Pérez et al., 2021). Notably, adults with elevated sensory sensitivity consistently report higher attachment anxiety and greater psychological distress (Jerome and Liss, 2005; Meredith et al., 2016; Branjerdporn et al., 2019). This co-occurrence suggests that heightened processing of sensory and emotional information may interact with attachment anxiety, potentially amplifying hyperactivating regulatory patterns such as increased vigilance to relational cues and sensitivity to perceived relational threat. In this way, SOR may amplify not only emotional reactivity but also expectations regarding availability and responsiveness from others, with implications for caregiving under conditions of stress. Parenting, particularly in early childhood, typically involves unavoidable exposure to high volume, unpredictable, or competing sensory inputs. For parents with low sensory thresholds, these routine caregiving demands may also trigger physiological hyperarousal and cognitive overload more readily than for less sensitive parents.

From a neurobiological perspective, heightened insular and mirror neuron activation in highly sensitive individuals may intensify the emotional salience of children's cues, resulting in both stronger emotional attunement and a greater vulnerability to overwhelm (Aron et al., 2012; Acevedo et al., 2014). Through this, attachment orientation may further modulate how sensory input is experienced and regulated in caregiving contexts. When considering caregiver-infant attachment, early sensory interactions play a critical regulatory role (Carozza and Leong, 2020). A growing body of research indicates that affective touch (such as skin-to-skin contact through Kangaroo Care), mediated in part through activation of tactile C-fibers, supports caregiver-infant bonding, facilitates autonomic and emotional regulation, and promotes neurodevelopment, particularly in the context of early vulnerability such as preterm birth (Carozza and Leong, 2020; La Rosa et al., 2024). For SOR parents, engagement in intense tactile and affective caregiving stimuli may be experienced as physiologically and emotionally overwhelming (Pirmohamed, 2024), potentially influencing co-regulatory interactions. Over time, such mismatches between infant sensory needs and caregiver regulatory capacity may influence infant attachment organization.

When considering adult attachment orientations, anxious attachment styles have been linked with heightened physiological arousal, and reduced effectiveness in down-regulating emotional responses, particularly in attachment-relevant contexts (Eilert and Buchheim, 2023; Domic-Siede et al., 2024). Under such conditions, persistent parental arousal may contribute to children's emotional cues, such as infant distress, being experienced by parents as more intense and difficult to regulate. This relationship suggests that SOR and attachment anxiety may mutually reinforce one another over time, increasing vulnerability to sensory overload in parenting contexts. This dual nature of sensitivity was echoed in this review: some studies identified higher parental attunement among sensitive parents (Branjerdporn et al., 2020; Lionetti et al., 2025), whereas others reported increased psychological intrusiveness, irritability, or inconsistent responses (Turner et al., 2012; Goldberg and Scharf, 2020; Goldberg and Zibenberg, 2024). These seemingly contradictory findings may reflect the principle of context-dependent responsivity, a mechanism proposed in differential susceptibility theory (Belsky and Pluess, 2009), where highly sensitive individuals function optimally in supportive environments but struggle disproportionately in stressful or chaotic ones. Contextual moderators within the included studies lend support to this interpretation. Under conditions of marital conflict, parents high in Ease of Excitation (a subscale of the HSPS) showed same-day increases in negative parenting behaviors (Yan et al., 2024), perhaps suggesting that the emotional residues of conflict may spill over more readily when sensory thresholds are low. Similarly, in chaotic home environments, SOR was determined to predict harsher discipline, but only when parental self-regulation was already compromised, as demonstrated by a randomized controlled trial by Andeweg et al. (2024). In contrast, expatriate mothers high in SOR reported better adjustment when embedded in supportive networks (Lagarrigue et al., 2025), demonstrating that sensory sensitivity is not inherently maladaptive but interacts with environmental scaffolding. Qualitative findings further illuminate why SOR might disrupt parenting: parents described masking distress during high input tasks, rigidly modifying home environments, or withdrawing from overstimulating interactions (Turner et al., 2012). These strategies may protect short term functioning but risk eroding parental self-efficacy over time, particularly when the parent's regulatory needs remain unmet.

4.2 SUR: Under-responsivity and the challenges of noticing, initiating, and responding in parenting

Studies examining Sensory Under Responsivity (SUR) were fewer, yet they revealed noteworthy patterns that may help explain behavioral differences in these parents. While SUR was also associated with distress or anxiety in some samples (Nieto et al., 2024), the underlying mechanism may be distinct from SOR: rather than hyperarousal, SUR may contribute to reduced access to internal cues and slower processing of external ones.

From an attachment perspective, reduced sensitivity to incoming sensory and emotional cues may function in ways that resemble attachment-related deactivation strategies (Murray et al., 2021). Such strategies involve the downregulation of emotional input to maintain psychophysiological equilibrium in the face of potentially overwhelming stimulation, rather than reflecting emotional disengagement or lack of concern (Murray et al., 2021). In this sense, SUR may align with avoidant attachment orientations, which are often characterized by suppression of affective signals (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2019a; Messina et al., 2023).

The relationship with SUR and parenting may therefore be closely correlated with attachment. Prior literature has associated low registration with altered interoceptive awareness, lower occupational engagement, and reduced mindful presence (Dunn and Brown, 1997; Fiene and Brownlow, 2015; Hebert, 2016), which may translate in parenting contexts to difficulty noticing children's subtle signals or delayed behavioral activation. Regarding attachment, avoidant attachment orientations have been associated with reduced attention to emotional cues (Gauvin et al., 2025) and reliance on self-regulation strategies that minimize engagement with potentially distressing stimuli (Morris et al., 2025). These regulatory tendencies may contribute to dampened sensory salience, reinforcing patterns of low registration and slower orientation to caregiving cues, particularly under conditions of sustained relational or sensory demand. In perinatal contexts, low registration was associated with poorer maternal-fetal attachment (Branjerdporn et al., 2021), suggesting that dampened sensory salience may also limit the development of anticipatory emotional bonds. This mechanism may help begin to explain why several studies found reduced motivation to initiate caregiving routines, difficulty establishing new parenting habits, and lower perceived parenting competence among SUR parents (Good et al., 2012; Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023), however further primary research is needed to ascertain if this mechanism is substantiated by evidence.

Yet, SUR did not appear to be uniformly disadvantageous; in one study, mothers without children diagnosed with ADHD who showed higher low registration also demonstrated better executive functioning (Yaacoby-Vakrat et al., 2023). One plausible interpretation is that lower sensitivity to distractors may support cognitive control under certain conditions, whereas in the sensory-intense, rapidly shifting context of childcare, the same traits may impede responsiveness and attunement. Importantly, reduced responsiveness associated with SUR should not be equated with disengagement or lack of caregiving motivation without further consideration of contextual factors. From an attachment-informed perspective, downregulation of sensory and emotional input may function as an adaptive strategy to prevent overstimulation and preserve regulatory capacity (Murray et al., 2021). In parenting contexts, however, this reduced reactivity may delay the detection of children's signals or slow behavioral initiation, particularly when those cues are subtle, low-intensity, or require sustained attunement over time. As a result, caregivers may appear less responsive despite maintaining commitment to the caregiving role.

4.3 SS: activation benefits and regulatory trade-offs

Parents with high levels of sensory seeking (SS) demonstrated the most consistently favorable parenting profiles across included studies, including higher maternal-fetal attachment (Branjerdporn et al., 2021), engagement in more responsive or sensory-rich play (Welters-Davis and Mische Lawson, 2011), and reduced parenting stress or distress (Nieto et al., 2024).

SS may provide a buffer against the sensory load of parenting, making sensory-dense caregiving tasks (such as settling a crying baby, engaging in extended skin-to-skin, and breastfeeding) less physiologically and emotionally overwhelming (Aron et al., 2012), thereby supporting sustained engagement in these highly relational tasks. Greater capacity to remain present within these interactions may, in turn, increase opportunities for caregiver-infant co-regulation and bonding. This interpretation aligns with general population research linking SS to greater behavioral activation, occupational engagement, participation in leisure activities, and positive affect (Zuckerman, 1972; Choi and Jung, 2021; Forsberg et al., 2025), which may, in turn, facilitate aspects of secure caregiving such as availability and responsiveness (Cassidy et al., 2013).

However, higher thresholds appeared to have behavioral trade-offs. Parents high in SS tended to exhibit lower monitoring of children during adolescence (Wang et al., 2016), and mother-child dyads who both scored high in SS experienced more parenting hassles (Gafni-Lachter et al., 2022). Furthermore, whilst SS parents may be less easily overwhelmed, their tendency to encourage similar sensory seeking behaviors in their children may become a point of conflict in the home if their child is sensory sensitive or avoidant (Dunn, 2004). These mixed outcomes illustrate that while SS may reduce emotional strain for parents, it may predispose them toward granting greater autonomy or under-scaffolding environments for children who require predictable, structured support.

4.4 Strengths and limitations

Strengths of this review include that PRISMA guidelines and rigorous multirater processes were adhered to, and comprehensive searching was completed. Inclusion of multimethod studies allowed for contextual explanations of quantitative data to be considered when combined with qualitative study findings. The exclusion of articles published in languages other than English and the lack of consideration of cultural influences on parenting characteristics within review findings are further limitations. Although findings from studies using different measures of parental sensory processing could not be statistically compared, it is interesting to note the observed generalized patterns and overlaps between sensory constructs that arose within review findings. The high heterogeneity of the included studies' designs, methodologies, sample sizes, and measurement tools also limited comparisons and precluded meta-analysis.

Furthermore, given that paternal sensory processing may influence parenting in ways that differ from maternal sensory patterns, and that paternal caregiving behaviors may be expressed differently from maternal caregiving, it is likely that the relationships between sensory processing and parenting differ across parental gender. As fathers comprised only 10% of the total participant sample (with mothers accounting for the remaining 90%) caution is warranted when generalizing these findings to fathers, who were systematically underrepresented across the included studies.

Given the well-established heritability of neurodivergence and its documented associations with clinically significant sensory processing differences, it was decided that the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this review were futher refined following the final iteration of database and hand-searching in February 2026 to explicitly exclude studies of parents who were reportedly diagnosed as neurodivergent, specifically as autistic and/or ADHD. This refinement was undertaken in response to the substantial increase in relevant primary literature published since November 2024. The volume of eligible studies greatly exceeded projections made during protocol development, and the scope of the review was therefore narrowed to ensure adherence to established methodological standards, including duplicate screening and detailed quality appraisal. As a result of this refinement, five previously included studies (four qualitative and one mixed-methods) were removed from the analysis (in addition to an estimated 10–15 further papers that may otherwise have been identified via hand searching). Given the predominantly qualitative nature of these excluded studies, the narrowing of eligibility criteria may have introduced a bias toward quantitative investigations, which tended to explore the impact of sensory processing on parenting in less holistic or contextually rich ways. Excluding studies that included neurodivergent parents may also have contributed to an under-representation of individuals with more pronounced sensory processing differences, for whom sensory experiences may be particularly salient in shaping parenting practices. Although the removed studies were broadly consistent with the conclusions drawn by the present review, their exclusion may have led to an underestimation of the strength and complexity of associations between sensory processing characteristics and parenting traits.

Furthermore, whilst explicit care was taken, it is plausible that some parents included in the reviewed studies were neurodivergent but either unaware of their neurotype, in the process of exploring it, or chose not to disclose it. This possibility is further supported by the fact that several included studies did not explicitly report excluding participants on the basis of neurotype. Consequently, although this review aimed to examine associations between sensory processing and parenting practices among predominantly neurotypical parents, it is possible that some neurodivergent parents were represented within the sampled populations.

Taken together, these limitations highlight the need for cautious application of the findings, due to their limited generalizability, and underscore the highly individualized nature of both sensory processing and parenting. The varied and intersecting influences of sensory responsivity, neurotype, caregiving context, and gendered patterns of caregiving warrant further investigation, particularly in research explicitly designed to examine neurodiverse parenting experiences.

4.5 Implications for future research

More research is required with a focus on fathers, those with mental illnesses, co-occurring neurodiversity, and socio-economically, ethnically, geographically, and gender diverse parents. Future researchers should aim to utilize and document increased stakeholder consultation, such as co-design processes with topic experts, or those with lived experience of either sensory processing challenges or parenting. More longitudinal studies and the utilization of multiple time-point outcome measures are required to better understand the temporal outcomes related to parental sensory processing patterns and parenting. Review findings may inform future research on specific sensory interventions or parenting programs to support parents with atypical sensory processing to adopt positive parenting behaviors and support child outcomes.

5 Conclusion

This systematic review synthesized the existing evidence on how parental sensory processing patterns are associated with parenting characteristics, including parental perceptions and experiences associated with parenting, as well as their parenting behaviors and practices, and how these intersect with their sensory processing. Across studies, distinct sensory patterns were linked to different parenting presentations. Sensory Over Responsivity (SOR; including Dunn's “sensory avoiding” and “sensory sensitivity” sensory processing patterns, the “Sensory Processing Sensitivity” (SPS) trait as per the “Highly Sensitive Person” (HSP) construct, and Miller's “sensory over-responsivity” term) was consistently associated with greater emotional strain during caregiving, heightened vulnerability to stressors, and a tendency toward more reactive, intrusive, or inconsistent parenting, particularly in demanding or unpredictable environments, as well as high attunement and responsiveness to their child's emotions and needs. Sensory Under Responsivity (SUR; including Dunn's “low registration” sensory processing pattern and Miller's “sensory under-responsivity” term) was less frequently examined but was generally associated with reduced behavioral activation, lower perceived parenting competence, and greater difficulty initiating or sustaining daily caregiving tasks. In contrast, Sensory Seeking (SS; including Dunn's “sensory seeking” pattern, Miller's “sensory craving” term, and Zuckerman's “sensation seeking” construct) tendencies were more often associated with positive parenting practices and experiences, such as heightened engagement with the novel and sensory-rich aspects of pregnancy and parenting, although sometimes accompanied by lower behavioral monitoring and potential misalignment with children whose sensory needs differed. The generalisability of review findings is limited, due to the overrepresentation of mothers, exclusion of neurodiverse parents, and high heterogeneity of included studies' designs and measures of both sensory processing and parenting variables. With consideration of these limitations, review findings suggest that sensory processing may contribute meaningfully to the ways parents perceive, experience, and enact their parenting roles, and subsequently relate to child-related outcomes. The review highlights the potential relevance of considering parental sensory patterns when supporting families, particularly where caregiving occurs in high sensory-demand contexts or where parents experience persistent overwhelm or reduced engagement. These insights provide a foundation for future research exploring sensory-informed intervention strategies designed to enhance parental wellbeing, strengthen co-regulation, promote more adaptive parenting outcomes, and ultimately, support optimal child developmental and relational outcomes.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdpys.2026.1842441/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Antonio Narzisi, Stella Maris Foundation (IRCCS), Italy

Reviewed by: Valentina Lucia La Rosa, University of Catania, Italy

Susan Allen, Oxford Brookes University Business School, United Kingdom