To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Sensory burden, a momentary experience of being bothered by sensory stimuli, is a frequent challenge following acquired brain injury (ABI). This study quantitatively tested a theoretical model conceptualizing sensory burden as a dynamic interaction between situational triggers and an individual’s biopsychosocial resources using an experience sampling method.
Method:
41 individuals with ABI (median age = 59 years, median time since injury = 6.3 years) provided real-time data at seven semi-random intervals per day over seven consecutive days. Multilevel regression modeling assessed the influence of situational triggers (setting, company, effort, activity dissatisfaction, and negative affect) and individual resources (processing speed, fatigue, and sleep quality) on sensory burden.
Results:
Momentary fluctuations in sensory burden varied in severity and variability across individuals. Sensory burden was associated with higher levels of negative affect (β = .58, p < .01), activity dissatisfaction (β = .07, p < .01), effort (β = .09, p < .01), and being in company (β = .39, p < .01). Moreover, sensory burden was related to slower processing speed (β = −0.04, p = .02) and higher fatigue (β = .19, p < .01). However, no interaction effects were found. Effort was the only positive, significant between-person predictor (β = .56, p < .01).
Conclusions:
These findings underscore the dynamic and individualized nature of sensory burden after ABI, emphasizing the need for personalized interventions targeting sensory hypersensitivity. Future research should explore additional triggers, resources, and causal pathways to further elucidate the proposed mechanisms and inform treatment development.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.