The concept of sensory integration refers to the neurological process of organizing information from our bodies and the environment for use in daily life, a framework first introduced by occupational therapist Anna Jean Ayres in the 1970s. Ayres proposed that when the brain does not efficiently process these inputs, it results in sensory integration dysfunction, which can manifest as significant challenges in motor planning, emotional regulation, and behavioral responses (Ayres, 1972). While the medical community has debated its classification, many practitioners and researchers now advocate for the term sensory processing disorder, or SPD, to describe a condition where sensory signals are either not detected or are not organized into appropriate responses. It is essential to recognize that sensory integration and sensory processing disorder are not necessarily the same school of thought, though they are often used interchangeably in casual conversation. Sensory integration, as defined by Ayres, focuses heavily on the neurobiological process and the integration of vestibular, proprioceptive, and tactile inputs to support functional output. In contrast, the movement toward the SPD nomenclature represents an effort to categorize these experiences as a standalone clinical diagnosis with specific subtypes, moving the discussion into a broader medical and diagnostic framework (Miller et al., 2007).
In the decades following the work of Ayres, various schools of thought have expanded our understanding of how individuals interact with their surroundings. Winnie Dunn introduced the sensory processing framework, which suggests that an individual’s response to sensory stimuli is a result of their neurological threshold and their self-regulation strategies (Dunn, 1997). In Dunn’s model, people are categorized based on whether they seek out or avoid sensory input, ranging from sensory seeking to sensory avoiding. This perspective is vital because it shifts the focus from a deficit-based model to one of understanding individual temperament and needs. While Ayres viewed these challenges through the lens of foundational neural dysfunction that required remediation, Dunn’s school of thought often emphasizes how these traits exist on a spectrum of human experience. For many, accepting that their sensory needs are valid involves a process of moving away from the grief of what they think their lives should look like and toward a functional acceptance of what they actually require to be sustainable and healthy.
Another influential figure in the field, Lucy Jane Miller, further refined these concepts by proposing a taxonomy that distinguishes SPD from the original Ayres Sensory Integration (ASI) framework. Miller proposed a nosology that divides SPD into three primary patterns: sensory modulation disorder, sensory-based motor disorder, and sensory discrimination disorder (Miller et al., 2007). This distinction was intentional, aiming to separate the underlying neurological process of integration from the observable clinical symptoms of the disorder. Miller’s research emphasizes that these subtypes require specific, tailored interventions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. A systematic review of sensory-based interventions indicates that while the field is still evolving, there is evidence that structured sensory support can improve functional outcomes and quality of life for neurodivergent individuals (Case-Smith et al., 2015). Recognizing these different schools of thought allows us to dismantle the guilt that often accompanies the need for accommodations. It is not a failure of character to need a weighted blanket or to avoid a high-intensity social environment; these are necessary adjustments for neurophysiological health.
Ultimately, whether viewed through the lens of sensory integration or sensory processing disorder, the focus remains on the lived reality of navigating a world that often feels too loud, too bright, or too tactile. By leaning into adaptability and self-compassion, we can build lives that respect our limitations while celebrating the unique ways we perceive our environment. This shift in perspective allows us to move from a state of constant defense to one of intentional and grounded living. Supporting someone with sensory processing challenges is not about fixing a broken system but about creating an environment that respects their unique neurological boundaries. When we stop trying to force ourselves into a mold that was never designed for us, we create space for a sense of self that is defined by authenticity rather than performance.
References
Ayres, A. J. (1972). Sensory integration and learning disorders. Western Psychological Services.
Case-Smith, J., Weaver, L. L., & Fristad, M. A. (2015). A systematic review of sensory processing interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 19(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313517762
Dunn, W. (1997). The impact of sensory processing abilities on every day life. Occupational Therapy Practice, 2(1), 1–35.
Miller, L. J., Anzalone, M. E., Lane, S. J., Cermak, S. A., & Osten, E. T. (2007). Concept evolution in sensory integration: A proposed nosology for diagnosis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(2), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.2.135
