The Relationship Between Sensory Processing and Attachment Patterns: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Clinicians and researchers have observed that sensory processing and attachment difficulties frequently co-occur; however, little is known about which sensory processing and attachment patterns are interrelated across populations. Purpose. To review evidence of empirical relationships between sensory processing and attachment patterns across the life span. Method. Using the Arksey and O’Malley framework, four databases were searched up to June 2021 for studies that investigated relationships between sensory processing and attachment patterns. Findings. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria: nine considered sensory and attachment patterns in children/adolescents and thirteen in adults. In children, sensory modulation was positively associated with attachment security. In adults, more extreme patterns of sensory modulation (e.g., higher sensory sensitivity) were generally associated with attachment insecurity. Implications. Findings indicate empirical relationships between sensory processing and attachment constructs in children and adults that warrant further investigation. Occupational therapists should consider both sensory processing and attachment patterns when planning interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".