To Avoid or Expose: That Is The Question
By Michaela Gordon, OTR/L
As occupational therapists, we spend a great deal of time thinking about how the nervous system receives, processes, integrates, and responds to sensory information.
For some individuals, ordinary sensory experiences can be overwhelming. A loud classroom, fluorescent lights, certain textures, movement, touch, smells, or visual stimulation may push the nervous system beyond what the person can comfortably manage. When this happens, we often make accommodations: we turn down the lights, reduce background noise, provide noise-canceling headphones, modify clothing, decrease visual clutter, or help the person move into a quieter environment.
These accommodations can be incredibly important. But there is another approach.
Rather than always reducing sensory input, occupational therapy can also work toward improving a person’s ability to process and integrate sensory information. Through carefully selected sensory experiences, graded challenges, repetition, and active engagement, we can sometimes help a person develop greater capacity to respond to sensory information.
So which approach is correct? Should we avoid sensory input, or should we expose someone to it? I believe the answer is both.
The more important question is not whether we should avoid or expose. The question is when, how much, and for what purpose?
The nervous system is designed to adapt. One of the most fascinating characteristics of the nervous system is its ability to change in response to experience.
Neuroplasticity refers to the brain’s capacity to change its structure and function in response to experience, learning, environmental demands, and sensory input. Research has demonstrated that sensory experience plays an important role in shaping developing neural systems, particularly during sensitive periods of development. Research has also found that sensory deprivation and altered sensory experiences can produce measurable changes in neural organization.
This raises an important question for sensory processing: If the nervous system can adapt to the sensory experiences it receives, what happens when certain sensory experiences are consistently removed?
There is a theory that when sensory input is provided at a certain level of intensity and frequency over a duration over time, the repeated sensory experiences may contribute to neuroplastic changes in the nervous system. In other words, the nervous system can learn from what it repeatedly experiences.
With carefully graded sensory input, we may be able to create opportunities for the nervous system to develop and strengthen neural connections and more efficient ways of processing and responding to sensory information.
This is one of the principles underlying sensory integration therapy.
The goal is not simply to expose someone to more sensory input. The goal is to provide the right sensory experience, at the right intensity, with the right frequency and duration, while keeping the challenge within a range that allows the person to remain regulated and engaged.
Over time, repeated experiences may support adaptation and more efficient sensory processing.
I am not suggesting that accommodations cause sensory sensitivity. The research does not establish that. But exposure is not the same as flooding. This distinction is critical.
If a child is extremely sensitive to sound, putting them into an extremely loud environment and telling them to “get used to it” with no defined beginning or end or support is not what I mean by therapeutic exposure.
In occupational therapy, we are often trying to find what I would call the just-right challenge.
The challenge needs to be meaningful enough to encourage adaptation, but manageable enough that the person’s nervous system can remain engaged. This might mean front loading the person so they know their system will be challenged and what to expect. This might mean starting with a very small amount of sensory input. It might mean changing the intensity, duration, or context of the experience. It might mean providing another sensory input that helps the person organize themselves. And it might mean using an accommodation while simultaneously working toward increasing capacity.
The goal is not to force tolerance, but to build options.
So what happens when we only accommodate? Accommodations are not inherently problematic. In fact, accommodations can be essential. If a child cannot tolerate the sound of a fire alarm, providing hearing protection may allow that child to participate safely in school. If fluorescent lighting causes significant distress, changing the lighting may allow someone to remain in a classroom. If a person becomes overwhelmed in a crowded environment, reducing the sensory load by limiting the amount of time in that environment may allow them to participate in an activity that would otherwise be inaccessible.
These are meaningful occupational outcomes, but I think we should also ask another question: Could an accommodation sometimes become the only strategy, when there is an opportunity to build greater capacity?
There is emerging research examining sensory accommodation in families of autistic children and children with sensory over-responsivity. Accommodation can reduce distress and help families function, but researchers have also raised questions about whether extensive accommodation can sometimes limit opportunities for coping and adaptation.
Again, this does not mean that accommodations are bad. It means that we should consider their cost and benefit.
-What is this accommodation allowing the person to do?
-What is it helping them avoid?
-Is the accommodation increasing participation?
-Is it reducing unnecessary suffering?
-Is it providing a bridge toward greater independence?
-Or has it gradually narrowed the person’s world?
These are very different questions.
We can learn something from sensory deprivation research. Research on sensory deprivation provides another interesting perspective.
We know from developmental neuroscience that sensory experience plays an important role in the organization and refinement of the developing brain. Severe deprivation during critical periods of development can alter the development and organization of sensory systems. Research has demonstrated that enriched and deprived sensory environments can produce different structural and functional changes in the developing nervous system.
This does not mean that a child who wears headphones in a noisy classroom is experiencing “sensory deprivation.” That would be an inappropriate comparison. The situations are vastly different. However, these studies reinforce a broader principle: The brain develops and adapts in relationship to the experiences it receives; therefore having experiences is very important.
And that is one reason I believe it is worth asking whether we are providing enough opportunities for people to experience the sensory world in ways that are safe, meaningful, and appropriately challenging.
Sensory integration is about more than tolerating sensations. When sensory integration therapy is provided thoughtfully, the goal should not simply be: “Can I make this child tolerate something they don’t like?” The goal is much broader. The questions we can ask are:
-Can the child participate more successfully in school?
-Can they play with peers?
-Can they tolerate movement?
-Can they manage the sensory demands of getting dressed?
-Can they participate in family activities?
-Can they remain organized when the environment becomes more stimulating?
-Can they recover more efficiently when they do become overwhelmed?
-Can they develop greater flexibility in how they respond?
The answers to these questions determine the person’s occupational goals.
And recent research provides encouraging evidence for this approach. A 2025 systematic review of randomized controlled trials found strong evidence that Ayres Sensory Integration® supported autistic children in achieving individualized goals related to occupational performance, function, and participation. A 2026 systematic review of occupational therapy interventions using Ayres Sensory Integration® similarly concluded that there is good evidence supporting its use to improve participation in everyday activities for children with sensory integration and processing challenges.
Importantly, these studies do not suggest that sensory integration is a treatment for every behavior or difficulty. Rather, they support its use for individualized functional goals.
Therefore, the answer may be neither avoidance nor exposure. Perhaps the real answer is what combination of accommodation and direct intervention leads to the person’s best ability to adapt.
Sometimes adaptation means changing the environment. Sometimes adaptation means helping the person develop greater capacity. Sometimes it means both. For instance, a child may need headphones today, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will need headphones forever. The plan may be that the child wears noise-canceling headphones during specific times of the day, but then engages in a therapeutic music program to improve their ability to process auditory input over a course of time.
There is no universal sensory prescription. The right approach depends on the individual.
We need to consider the person’s:
- physiology
- sensory patterns
- developmental level
- cognitive flexibility
- emotional regulation
- ability to communicate
- adaptability
- personality
- environment
- occupational demands
- values
- preferences
- goals
Most importantly, we need to ask what the person wants and needs to be able to do.
If someone has no desire or functional need to increase their ability to adapt to a particular sensory input, perhaps there is no reason to make that a therapeutic goal.
But if sensory sensitivity is preventing someone from going to school, eating in restaurants, traveling, participating in family events, working, sleeping, playing, or engaging in meaningful activities, then expanding sensory capacity may be incredibly valuable.
The conversation should never be one-time. I think this is where occupational therapy has an important role.
We should continually ask:
-What is helping?
-What is limiting?
-What is this person ready for?
-What is too much?
-What might be a meaningful next challenge?
-What accommodations are necessary?
-And what capacities might we be able to build?
The answers can change.
A child who needed extensive accommodations six months ago may now be ready for a new challenge. A child who was tolerating an activity may suddenly become overwhelmed because the environment changed, their sleep changed, their health changed, or the demands increased. A person may need more protection during one period of life and more challenge during another.
So, should we avoid or expose? Maybe the better question is: What does this person need right now to participate successfully—and what might help them participate more fully in the future?
An accommodation can be a destination, but it can also be a bridge while we offer other types of therapeutic interventions. The art of occupational therapy is knowing the difference.
And sometimes, the most appropriate answer is not to choose between the two, but to use both.
References
Acuña, C., Gallegos-Berrios, S., Barfoot, J., Meredith, P., & Hill, J. (2025). Ayres Sensory Integration® with children ages 0 to 12: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(3). https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2025.051023
Piller, A., Glennon, T. J., Andelin, L., Auld-Wright, K., McHugh Conlin, J., Teng, K., & Tarver, T. (2026). Occupational therapy interventions using Ayres Sensory Integration® for children and youth (2015–2024): A systematic review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 80(1). https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2025.051130
Green, S. A., Hernandez, L., Lawrence, K. E., Liu, J., Tsang, T., Yeargin, J., Cummings, K., Laugeson, E., Dapretto, M., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (2019). Distinct patterns of neural habituation and generalization in children and adolescents with autism with low and high sensory overresponsivity. American Journal of Psychiatry, 176(12), 1010–1020. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.18121333
Bengoetxea, H., Ortuzar, N., Bulnes, S., Rico-Barrio, I., Lafuente, J. V., & Argandoña, E. G. (2012). Enriched and deprived sensory experience induces structural changes and rewires connectivity during the postnatal development of the brain. Neural Plasticity, 2012, 305693. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/305693
Nwabudike, I., & Che, A. (2024). Early-life maturation of the somatosensory cortex: Sensory experience and beyond. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 18, 1430783. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2024.1430783
Ben-Sasson, A., & Zisserman, A. (2025). Sensory family accommodation for autistic and sensory overresponsive children: The mediating role of parenting distress tolerance. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(3). https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2025.050790


