Sensory differences are common in CP and easy to miss behind the movement problems. What the studies measured, which sensory therapy the evidence grades as ineffective, and what an occupational therapist can change at home and school.
Sensory processing differences are common in cerebral palsy, and occupational therapy can measure them and plan around them. In a 2023 Swedish study of children with spastic CP, 55% scored far outside the typical range on at least one part of the Child Sensory Profile 2, yet sensory integration therapy itself is graded red, meaning “do not do it,” in the Novak systematic reviews of CP treatment.
Our guide to occupational therapy for cerebral palsy covers what OT is, when to start and how often sessions run. This page is narrower. It separates three things a therapy plan often blurs together: the sensory differences children with CP actually show, the sensory treatment that has been tested and graded ineffective, and the everyday changes that make a sensory problem less disabling.
Cerebral palsy is defined by movement, but the brain injury behind it rarely spares sensation. Four studies published between 2016 and 2024, from Brazil, Spain, Sweden and India, found children with CP responding differently from their peers to sound, touch, movement and body position.
In Brazil, Pavão and Rocha compared 43 children with CP against 59 typically developing children using the Sensory Profile, a questionnaire parents complete about everyday situations. The groups differed in 16 of its 23 categories.
In Spain, Jovellar-Isiegas and colleagues tested 29 children with unilateral CP aged 6 to 15 against 24 peers on the Child Sensory Profile 2. The children with CP had more difficulty with avoidance, registration, body position, oral processing and social-emotional responses. Their proprioceptive scores, which reflect the sense of where the body is, tracked with how well they managed daily activities and mobility.
The largest sample came from India. Caregivers of 230 children aged 3 to 14 with spastic CP completed the same questionnaire, and 83% of the children fell in the definite difference range, more than 2 standard deviations from typical. Nearly half, 47%, had definite differences in more than one section. Children at the more severe GMFCS levels had more of them.
The Swedish study is the most detailed. Ericson and colleagues studied 60 children with spastic CP, mean age 12, at GMFCS levels I to IV, and 55 of their parents completed the Child Sensory Profile 2. Body position was the most common problem area, flagged for 40% of the children and over-represented in bilateral CP. Registration came next at 26%. That is the pattern of simply not noticing sensory input. Sound followed at 13%, movement at 9% and touch at only 6%.
Adults describe the same thing. A 2024 survey of 155 people with CP aged 1 to 76, recruited through the MyCP registry, found that 97% reported at least one bothersome sensory symptom. The authors list their own limits plainly: answers were self-reported or caregiver-reported, there was no control group, and people with sensory symptoms may have been more likely to respond.
Two things follow from these numbers. The common problem in CP is often under-response, a child who does not register where a leg is or that a sleeve is wet, rather than the child who covers their ears at a birthday party. And the spread from 55% to 83% reflects the tool. A parent questionnaire measures behavior in daily life. It does not look at the nervous system directly.
For a child with hemiplegia, the most measurable sensory problem is usually in the affected hand. In an Australian study of 52 children with unilateral CP, 40% had deficits in both registering and interpreting touch, 37% had deficits in interpreting only, and 23% had none.
Auld and colleagues ran a full battery on each hand: Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments for light touch, single-point localization, two-point discrimination, stereognosis (naming an object by feel) and texture perception. All 52 children were at GMFCS level I or II, so these were children who walk and use both hands. The affected hand still scored worse than the other hand on every test. And both hands scored below either hand of the 34 typically developing children, which means the “good” hand is not always fully typical either. The weaker a child’s basic touch registration, the worse they did on every perception test.
This matters for daily life in a specific way. A hand that reports little about what it holds drops things, gets left out of two-handed tasks, and is slow to warn about heat or a sharp edge. Parents of children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy often read this as the child ignoring the hand.
Treating the touch deficit itself is where the evidence runs out. A 2014 systematic review by the same group screened 2,938 studies and found 30 that met its criteria. Several approaches improved touch in adults after stroke, including mirror therapy and stimulus-specific training. None reported improving tactile function in children with CP. What does improve how the hand is used is active practice, and constraint-induced movement therapy and bimanual training both hold green ratings. Our page on fine motor skills in cerebral palsy covers both.
Sensory integration therapy has the weakest standing of any common OT approach for CP. Novak and colleagues graded it red, “do not do it,” in their 2013 review of 64 interventions, a grade that went to only 6% of the 131 outcomes they assessed.
The American Academy of Pediatrics describes these therapies as activities meant to organize the sensory system by supplying vestibular, proprioceptive, auditory and tactile input, using brushes, swings, balls and similar equipment. The child mostly receives input. There is no task to practice.
That is the reason it scores poorly in CP. The 2020 update of the Novak review drew on 247 articles and grouped sensory integration with other passive, bottom-up approaches it called less effective and sometimes clearly ineffective for improving function. The OT approaches that earned green in the same review all ask the child to work on a real goal: goal-directed training, home programs built on goal-directed training, bimanual training and constraint-induced movement therapy. The 2013 review advised that red light interventions be discontinued, since better alternatives exist.
The AAP’s 2012 policy statement covers developmental and behavioral disorders in general rather than CP. It says sensory processing disorder generally should not be diagnosed, because there is no universally accepted framework for it, and that parents should be told the research on sensory integration therapy is limited and inconclusive. It still allows sensory-based therapy as one part of a wider plan, with a trial period and with families taught how to judge whether it works.
Not every researcher reads the gap the same way. Pavão and Rocha ended their 2017 paper by calling for sensory therapies that improve function. That is a call for trials, not a trial result. A sensory difference can be real without any particular sensory therapy being effective for it.
The red rating applies to sensory integration therapy as a treatment. It does not dispute the sensory differences measured in the studies above. Ask the occupational therapist to handle those differences through the setting and through practice of the task itself, and to name a measure before starting any sensory program.
A sensory assessment in CP usually has two parts: a parent questionnaire about daily life and hands-on tests of touch in the hands. Every study on this page used one or both.
The Child Sensory Profile 2 asks caregivers how often their child responds in particular ways to everyday events, such as a noisy room, messy hands or a swing. Scores are grouped by sense (auditory, visual, touch, movement, body position, oral) and into four patterns: seeking, avoiding, sensitivity and registration. A result in the “much more than others” band sits more than 2 standard deviations from typical children. That is how the Swedish and Indian studies counted their 55% and 83%.
Touch testing is hands-on and takes the child’s attention for longer. Monofilaments check whether light touch registers at all. Two-point discrimination checks whether the child can tell one point from two. Stereognosis asks the child to identify a key or a coin hidden from view. Our page on occupational therapy assessments for cerebral palsy covers the motor instruments that usually sit alongside these.
A useful report ties the scores to a task the family cares about. “High registration score” tells a parent little. “Does not notice food on his face, so we will add a mirror check after meals” gives the family something to do. Given the AAP position, a questionnaire result describes behavior. It should not come back labeled as a diagnosis of sensory processing disorder.
The most defensible sensory help in CP changes the setting or the task rather than trying to retrain the nervous system. The Spanish study authors concluded that knowing a child’s sensory pattern is most useful for adapting activities and environments to support participation.
Matched to the patterns the studies found most often:
Four questions that follow the AAP advice on trial periods:
At school, write accommodations into the IEP or 504 plan so they survive a change of teacher. Our page on occupational therapy for children with cerebral palsy explains how school-based OT is arranged. At home, the same changes fit into dressing and washing, covered in self-care skills in cerebral palsy, and into the practice routines described in OT at home.
Many do. In a 2024 study of 230 children aged 3 to 14 with spastic CP in India, caregiver answers on the Child Sensory Profile 2 placed 83% in the definite difference range, and a 2023 Swedish study of children with spastic CP put the figure at 55%. The most common pattern in the Swedish study was in body position awareness, at 40%.
The evidence does not support it. The 2013 systematic review of CP interventions by Novak and colleagues graded sensory integration red, meaning do not do it, and the 2020 update still lists it among the red light interventions. The American Academy of Pediatrics describes the research on sensory integration therapy in general as limited and inconclusive.
Often because the hand sends back weak touch information. In an Australian study of 52 children with unilateral CP, 77% had a measurable touch deficit in the affected hand. A hand that reports little about what it holds is easy to forget, so an occupational therapist tests sensation as well as movement.
Usually with a parent questionnaire such as the Child Sensory Profile 2, which asks how the child responds to sound, touch, movement and body position in daily life, plus hands-on touch tests: monofilaments for light touch, two-point discrimination, and stereognosis, which is recognizing an object by feel alone.
Changes to the setting rather than to the child: steadier seating for children who struggle to sense body position, a quieter spot or ear defenders for sound sensitivity, and letting a child watch the affected hand when touch feedback is weak. Each one should be written into the plan with a way to tell whether it helped.
The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests treating sensory integration therapy as a trial: agree on a goal, a time limit and a measure before starting, and stop if nothing changes. Therapy time spent on a red light approach is time not spent on green light ones such as goal-directed training, bimanual training and constraint-induced movement therapy.
Kelsey is an experienced surgical nurse who works extensively with pediatric patients and families navigating birth injuries and cerebral palsy diagnoses. She is licensed by the Missouri Board of Nursing and operates under the Nurse Licensure Compact, allowing her to practice across compact-member states. As both a mentor and patient advocate, Kelsey focuses on safety, communication, and compassionate care: helping families understand medical procedures, treatment options, and the realities of pediatric conditions.
View Kelsey Pabst, RN's full bio →
Our nurses, patient advocates and legal experts are solely focused on bringing you the latest cerebral palsy information, options for financial assistance and access to community support.
Editorial process →The information on this page is provided for general educational purposes and is not a substitute for professional medical or legal advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the guidance of a qualified physician or attorney with any questions about a medical condition or legal matter. Read our full disclaimer.
