Characterising the nature and effect of sensory overload in an undergraduate chemistry teaching laboratory

Abstract

Sensory overload occurs when an individual's sensory inputs exceed their processing capacity; the inability of a person to process sensory stimuli can affect their state of mind, emotions, and behaviours. This is particularly relevant in environments rich in sensory stimuli, such as chemistry laboratories. This report details the characterisation and impact of sensory overload on students in a teaching laboratory that is predominantly used for first-year undergraduate chemistry classes at a UK Higher Education Institution. The data were collected in the form of a survey (n = 258) and semi-structured focus group (n = 3) as well as discussions with those involved in designing and managing the laboratory. Student participants' perceptions of the sensory triggers of lighting, sounds, smells, and touch were evaluated, and responses from neurotypical and neurodivergent students were compared. Quantitative analysis was performed with a significance level of p = 0.05, and qualitative data was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results indicate that, while general sensory stimulation did not significantly differ between neurotypical and neurodiverse groups, the sensory triggers were prevalent for most students – around 19% of survey respondents claimed to have experienced sensory overload or discomfort in the laboratory; the noise level was predominantly categorised as ‘normal’; the lighting conditions were considered to be ‘bright’ to ‘normal’; the participants were mindful of strong smells in the laboratory, particularly from a health and safety perspective; discomfort with sensations of touch centred around use of gloves, layering of laboratory coats on top of clothing, and extended use of safety goggles. Specific aspects such as lighting were perceived differently between neurotypical and neurodivergent students. Findings suggest that even modern teaching spaces can present challenges in accommodating sensory sensitivities, which impact students' learning journeys. There is, therefore, a need for educational environments to consider sensory overload effects and neurodiversity more comprehensively. Future work should focus on implementing targeted mitigations, which are also briefly discussed here, such as designated ‘cool off’ spaces and familiarisation sessions, to create supportive learning spaces. By proactively addressing sensory overload and promoting more inclusive learning environments, outcomes can be enhanced for many students, not least for those who are neurodivergent.

---

Introduction

Laboratory work is an integral part of the training and work of a chemist, from secondary school up to postgraduate level and beyond. Teaching laboratories are a hallmark of chemistry degrees – they promote effective hands-on learning, underpin scientific understanding, and are the place where students “learn how to do chemistry” (Seery, 2020, among others). An area of chemistry education which is significantly lacking in research is how sensory overload can affect students within chemistry teaching laboratories, though anecdotal evidence is plentiful (Flaherty, 2022, and references therein), as are preliminary indications from various projects currently underway (Sarju, 2023; Odedra and Soler, 2024). Indeed, there is a general lack of agreement and understanding of the concept of sensory overload itself, with the analysis performed by Scheydt et al. in 2017 comparing and streamlining 12 definitions that they had found in the literature. In short, sensory overload occurs when an individual's sensory inputs from their environment exceed their capacity to process and respond to them (Scheydt et al., 2017, and references therein). This can be heightened by external factors such as a lack of sleep, increased stress, or other situational stimuli. The effects of sensory overload vary from person to person and so are perceived on an individual-specific basis and can be compensated by adopting coping behaviours. In teaching laboratories, there are many factors that could increase the number and intensity of stimuli an individual will encounter compared to their everyday life. The simultaneous stimulation of sight, smell, hearing, and touch heightens an individual's senses in a way that could be seen as unnatural to many students, especially at the beginning of their studies (Hudson, 2017). In a publication from 2022, Flaherty discusses how the chemistry teaching laboratory, and all its sense-demanding complexities, might be manageable for some, but for others who experience sensory overload issues, it can be a “most-unnerving environment” (Flaherty, 2022), highlighting the need to make laboratories accessible and inclusive to everyone.

The problem of overload due to disturbed sensory filtering or gating appears to occur more frequently for certain groups of individuals. One example is those who are neurodivergent or who are in the neurominority (Scheydt et al., 2017; Doyle, 2020), where the diversity “refers to a natural range of differences in the human brain… such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, dyspraxia and dyslexia” (Szulc et al., 2021; Flaherty, 2022). This increase in susceptibility to sensory overload could be attributed to many reasons – for example, the differences in brain function could cause a hypersensitivity to an individual's surroundings or reduce the effectiveness of adopted coping behaviours, among others.

It is important to recognise that ‘neurodiversity’ is an umbrella term for a variety of conditions, and each one has its own complexities. Indeed, the use of the umbrella term and its derivatives (such as neurodifferent, neurominority, hidden impairments, neurodevelopmental disorders, among others) is inconsistent, and it is pertinent here to note that they may be used interchangeably (Doyle, 2020). This debated use of nomenclature should be noted, and whilst the complex history and development of the concepts are outwith the scope of this piece, the work presented here generally fits into the biopsychosocial model of neurodiversity insofar as that the work attempts to frame the deficiencies as environmental, and the route to improving the fit between the student and the laboratory are adjustments to the environment rather the person. As well as the individualities of neurodiverse conditions, sensory overload will affect individuals differently. Consequently, there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to how the laboratory experience can be improved. This makes it more complex to adjust the environment to suit everyone, and it has been identified as being difficult to adapt to the subtle challenges that neurodivergent people can face and therefore harder to resolve (Khan et al., 2023). This should not discourage the push for a change – in 2022, Egambaram et al. described the discrimination against disabled people as “endemic within academia”, particularly if this disability is described as invisible – and this change should be made in collaboration with those who are affected the most (Charlton, 1998; Sarju, 2021). This will help address, amongst other indicators, the lack of disabled degree entrants, the lack of disabled staff members to act as role models, and the awarding gap, as specified by Egambaram et al. (2022).

Although cognitive overload and sensory overload are distinct, there are links between the two concepts (Paterson, 2017), including sometimes similar signs and symptoms (Scheydt et al., 2017 and references therein). An example of this is if a student is experiencing cognitive overload, the student's stress level could be heightened or their ability to filter and process sensory information could be reduced. Conversely, the effect of sensory overload could be so great that it has a detrimental effect on the student being able to process information and perform cognitively. The combination of extensive cognitive demands and sensory overload can have synergistic effects, although this relationship can be very complex and context-dependent, and the effects could be exacerbated if the student is neurodivergent. Though, it is worthy to note that sensory stimuli, when appropriately leveraged, could be beneficial to a student's learning (see, for example, Marino et al., 2025).

The possibility of emotional implications also being affected by sensory overload should be considered. As highlighted by Agustian et al. (2025), the affective dimensions of learning are important factors in the laboratory – the interplay between curiosity, wonder, excitement, frustration, fear of failure, and disappointment, among others, is important to learning as well as to identity development and sense of belonging. The drive to enhance the positive emotions and reduce the negative ones such that a student's learning journey in the laboratory is optimal can be undermined if the sensory triggers of the environment facilitate feelings of frustration and anxiety, decrease enjoyment, or lead to confusion or nervousness (Bowen, 1999; Kurbanoglu and Akim, 2010; Galloway and Bretz, 2016; Rummey et al., 2019; Agustian et al., 2025). Understanding and addressing the triggers that might elicit these emotions and their negative effects, then, should be beneficial for learning.

These issues are especially important to tackle in first-year chemistry laboratories, as this is a critical stage for a person's professional development (Supalo et al., 2023). First-year students represent a diverse range of experiences, particularly in terms of laboratory exposure, and for many, it marks their initial immersion into a laboratory setting, making it a pivotal moment where sensory overload and its effects may be most pronounced. The unfamiliar stimulation encountered in this environment could pose challenges that students have not previously experienced, and this can in turn, have an effect on their learning and performance. Work on this has been previously reported by, for example, Odedra and Soler (2024), who triangulated student perceptions across cognitive, sensory, and social loads in practical sessions over a number of years, and looked at e-resources to help mitigate the negative effects of these on learning in the laboratory.

Research aims and questions

This research project investigated the sensory triggers within a modern chemistry teaching laboratory. It will be used to further discern the impact chemistry teaching laboratories have as a sensory demanding environment. Further to this, it will address a gap in literature by exploring the differential effects of sensory overload on neurotypical students compared to neurodivergent students and how the sensory triggers and sensory overload could be addressed within teaching laboratories.

Overall, it will provide a current state-of-play, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to which further research can build upon and to ultimately mitigate sensory issues within the laboratory. This will allow for teaching laboratories to become environments that can accommodate all students.

The following questions were used to guide this investigation:

(1) How do students perceive a modern teaching laboratory in terms of its sensory triggers?

(2) What are the consequences of sensory overload within a teaching laboratory on the student and their learning journey?

(3) Are neurodivergent students affected differently by sensory overload within a teaching laboratory environment than neurotypical students?

(4) How do students perceive possible mitigation strategies for the effects of sensory overload in the teaching laboratory environment?

Methodology

The Nucleus Building, which opened in January 2023, is a shared learning, teaching, and social hub at the heart of The King's Buildings campus at the University of Edinburgh (The University of Edinburgh (a), 2024). It includes a 100-person specialist teaching laboratory for the School of Chemistry, where predominantly first-year practical classes are held. The Nucleus Teaching Laboratory (NTL) is the teaching laboratory that is the focus of this study.

The study used a mixed method design, with a survey and a focus group session collecting quantitative and qualitative data. Some points were discussed with staff members who played a part in the design of the laboratory space as well as the technical staff who work in the laboratory. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the School of Chemistry at the University of Edinburgh.

The primary source of data collection was an anonymous survey created on the Jisc Online Surveys platform. The survey was distributed to students registered on a range of first- and second-year chemistry courses (see Section S1 of the SI for a description of these courses and how they relate to each other) by e-mail and using announcements in the virtual learning environment. These were supplemented with announcements in lectures and tutorials, as well as with posters showing QR codes that linked to the survey. All cohorts surveyed used the NTL in the academic year the survey was conducted (2023–2024). Participants received no renumeration or other incentive for completing the survey. The survey contained thirty-one questions, including a consent-to-participate question that followed a participant briefing, eighteen multiple choice questions, eight multi-line free-text questions, and five bipolar Likert scale questions (the full survey is included in Section S2 of the SI). The questions were initially written by SS and reviewed by BEA. The questions were formulated following a sensory visit to the laboratory space – SS and BEA observed the laboratory during a practical session and noted their own perceptions of the sensory triggers present, which informed the questions that were written. This was supplemented by considering previous work (Egambaram et al., 2022; Flaherty, 2022; Sarju, 2023). The participants were asked to self-identify as being neurotypical or neurodivergent (or choose a ‘Prefer not to say’ option) in the survey. A non-exhaustive list of conditions that are commonly associated with neurodiversity (“Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, dyslexia, etc.”) was included in the wording of the question to act as a short indicator of the definition being used for the study and for participants who might have required a definition of the term to continue with the survey (Doyle, 2020).

The focus group, which was conducted after an initial analysis of the survey data, allowed further exploration of the themes raised by the students in their survey answers. The focus group also provided an opportunity to discuss the implementation of potential mitigating measures for the issues identified. Recruitment was done through an expression of interest form at the end of the survey as well as by additional e-mails and announcements in the virtual learning environment. The incentive offered to participants for focus group attendance was the provision of refreshments during the session, which was felt to have minimal effect on response bias but be a fair reimbursement for time, as the focus group was held for an hour over a weekday lunchtime. The focus group followed a semi-structured format, with questions formulated prior to the focus group being supplemented with follow-up questions based on responses given during the discussions (see Section S2 of the SI for the initial list of guiding questions used for the focus group). The discussion was audio recorded and automatically transcribed, and the transcription was reviewed alongside the audio recording by SS for correctness and completeness.

Quantitative analysis, including Mann–Whitney U tests, was performed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (Version 29). The data were coded to give the descriptive Likert-scale answers a numerical value to allow for comparison by statistical analysis, and the data were treated non-parametrically so as not to introduce assumptions on answer distributions.

Reflexive thematic analysis, based on Braun and Clarke's six-phase analytical process (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Braun and Clarke, 2022; Byrne, 2022; Braun and Clarke, 2024; and others), was performed on answers to questions with a free-text answer box in the survey and on the focus group transcript. The free-text survey responses were initially reviewed by the primary author, SS, in order to become familiarised with the content. SS then manually coded the data and generated themes from those codes such that the themes could answer the survey question and/or one or more of the research questions. The responses were analysed inductively and with latent coding – the codes and themes were crafted through the reflection of the data and without a pre-determined codebook. SS used these codes and themes to develop starter questions for the semi-structured focus group. The focus group transcript was analysed by SS in the same way as the survey's free-text responses. The procedure and the resulting themes were reviewed by BEA in the role of project supervisor. This sought to ensure general quality and agreement rather than detailed coding consensus – no changes to the analysis were implemented following BEA's check.

Limitations

Participation in the survey was voluntary, which could result in data that does not fully represent the entire cohort. Though, as discussed later, the demographics of the survey respondents were not overly dissimilar to those that would be expected from the overall student population. Furthermore, individual interpretations of survey questions could introduce variability in responses, although mitigation of this risk was attempted through pilot testing of survey questions. The extended survey duration of five weeks may have influenced participant perceptions, with familiarity with the laboratory environment potentially evolving over time, thereby impacting response consistency. This links also to the timing of the survey distribution – the survey was released during teaching week 8 of 11 of the first semester of the academic year 2023–2024. That is, student responses could have been affected by sight of the questions before a laboratory session, thus affecting their perceptions of the sensory triggers. A further limitation is associated with Likert scale questions due to the differentiation in what the researcher believes each scale point represents compared to each individual respondent (Page and Meyer, 2000). Given the intricate nature of diagnoses, the participants were asked in the survey to self-identify as being neurotypical or neurodivergent. Whilst this method has the advantage of not requiring a medical diagnosis or certification, which can be difficult to obtain, it carries a number of limitations. These include, but are not limited to: a lack of awareness of what being neurotypical or neurodivergent is, which could have led to participants providing an inconsistent self-identification; participants inadvertently representing particular personal traits as a being neurodivergent; participants being unsure as to which answer to select, especially if they are in the process of obtaining a medical diagnosis or certification. The overall results of the survey also relate to a cohort of students at a specific institute using a specific laboratory space, and so while trends may be able to be extrapolated to other laboratory spaces, specific observations may not be as easily transferable.

Results and discussion

A total of 258 survey responses were received, including 21 respondents who self-identified as being neurodivergent. Participants who opted not to disclose their neurotypical/neurodivergent status (n = 19) were excluded from statistical analysis where this distinction was relevant. A fuller picture of the respondent demographics can be found in Fig. S1–S4 in Section S3 of the SI. The key themes developed through reflexive thematic analysis of survey responses and of the focus group transcript, which was conducted with 3 participants (1 participant was openly neurodiverse throughout the focus group discussions), can also be found in the SI (Sections S4 and S5), and relevant discussion points are presented alongside the quantitative results here (a summary of the statistical tests performed can be found in Sections S6 and S7 of the SI).

Sensory overload

An early question in the survey asked the students to articulate their understanding of the term ‘sensory overload’, aiming to gauge their understanding of the term to contextualise subsequent survey responses effectively. Reflexive thematic analysis generated several prevalent themes (see Table S2 in Section S4 of the SI). Many students demonstrated a fundamental grasp of the concept, recognising that it involves the overstimulation of senses due to external factors, potentially impacting individual functioning. Another key theme suggested that sensory overload can be associated with certain conditions which all fit under the umbrella term of ‘neurodiverse’. Likewise, a thematic heading suggested that individuals may have their own coping strategies of how to deal with sensory overload. It is pertinent to acknowledge that, while a considerable portion of survey participants displayed a basic understanding of sensory overload, there is a thematic heading that also includes responses indicating a lack of comprehension of the term.

Neurotypical and neurodivergent students

As shown in Fig. 1, 8% of the survey respondents self-identified as being neurodivergent, contrasting the statistics from Edinburgh University's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion webpage, which suggests that 15% of the population are neurodivergent; about one in seven people (The University of Edinburgh (b), 2024). Advance HE's Students Statistical Report 2023 shows that disability disclosure rates among students in UK higher education have nearly tripled since 2003–2004, and overall, 18.2% of UK first degree undergraduate students disclosed a disability (Advance HE, 2023). According to the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Member Survey in 2022, disability disclosure rates among UK students had risen to 17.4%, of which 8% were neurodivergent (The Royal Society of Chemistry (a), 2023). In November 2023, the RSC published an online hub called ‘Disability in the Chemical Sciences’, which has a focus on the diversity of disability and the need for active allyship, and this was followed by a ‘Neurodiversity in the Chemical Sciences’ counterpart, which shows that, of all RSC members who self-identified as disabled in the 2024 Member Survey, 26% said they were neurodivergent (The Royal Society of Chemistry (a), 2023; The Royal Society of Chemistry (b), 2024). Differences between these reported percentages could arise from various factors, such as challenges in diagnosing neurodiverse conditions and concerns regarding ableism or discrimination. These factors could influence the participants’ willingness or ability to disclose their neurodivergent status, potentially explaining why 7% of respondents opted for the ‘prefer not to say’ option. Comparisons between neurodiverse and neurotypical groups were conducted across sensory experiences, including noise, light, smell, and touch, as well as overall stimulation, to address Research Question 3.

Fig. 1 A breakdown of survey participants’ responses to the question ‘Do you identify as neurodivergent?’, with 8% answering Yes, 85% answering No, and 7% answering Prefer Not To Say.

Noise

A Mann–Whitney U test revealed there to be no significant difference in the perception of noise within the NTL (U = 2275.500, p = 0.956), with neurotypical students (mean rank = 119.94) perceiving the level of noise similarly to neurodivergent students (mean rank = 120.64).

The survey results in Fig. 2 show a distribution resembling a bell curve, centred around the ‘normal’ value on the five-point bipolar Likert scale. The NTL incorporates a central vacuum and pump system, potentially minimising background noise – a feature included to align with environmental and engineering considerations rather than explicitly for noise reduction.

Fig. 2 The perception of noise in the Nucleus Teaching Laboratory is centred around Normal, with a roughly normal distribution around that central value.

The noises that had significant impact on students within the laboratory were those generated by glassware, equipment, and instruments, as highlighted in the free text responses. One theme that was also developed from both the survey and the focus group was the distraction caused by verbal communication, attributed to interactions among peers, demonstrators, academic staff, and laboratory technicians. A suggestion to limit talking in the laboratory gained a negative response during focus group discussions, with participants emphasising the importance of communication, particularly for paired experiments, for both safety and as an aid for students with varying levels of laboratory experience. Survey findings indicated that 46% of participants found sharing a fume cupboard beneficial for fostering social interactions and assisting students unfamiliar with laboratory procedures. Conversely, 26% expressed concerns about overcrowding in the laboratory, suggesting potential benefits of having fewer students present. However, this proposal poses challenges, including timetable availability and increased costs associated with additional staffing for more laboratory sessions throughout the week. The impact of the number of students in the laboratory was also highlighted during the focus group discussion. This prominent theme was noted to contribute significantly to noise levels and feelings of stress, and increased laboratory occupancy was also associated with a higher rate of mistakes made during experiments. This strong effect of noise on sensory overload has been previously observed by Marzolla et al. (2024).

A possible method to reduce the effects background noise has on the students in the laboratory that was mentioned was the use of earbuds, such as in-ear models manufactured by Loop, among others (Cabral, n.d.). There are clearly health and safety issues to be considered here, though one could imagine those that reduce rather than eliminate noise could be employed. There is anecdotal evidence of this approach being considered and implemented in some universities on a case-by-case basis, though some institutes have opted for over-ear rather an in-ear protection to reduce the additional safety concerns the use of in-ear models may bring. This was also a previously suggested mitigation in a perspective piece on sensory overload in teaching laboratories (Washbourn, 2024) and in a 2022 Nature article asking neurodivergent researchers what changes they would like to see to create a more equitable workplace (Pells, 2022). Although this mitigation could be beneficial to some students, it was stated by an individual in the focus group who was openly neurodivergent that they would not use the earbuds as they felt it would exacerbate sensory overload – “I don't think I would [use them] because the thought of having something on my body, something on my hands, something on my eyes, and then also having something in my ears would be really overwhelming.” This response reinforces the fact that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to helping all neurodivergent students combat the effects of sensory overload, and that a toolbox of possible modifications or interventions that could be adopted to suit the individual would be most appropriate. In the context of ear protection specifically, but also more generally, the introduction of new personal protective equipment raises safety concerns, necessitating trials and testing to ensure compliance with safety regulations and policies.

Lighting

A Mann–Whitney U test revealed there to be a significant difference in the perception of the lighting conditions within the NTL (U = 1673.000, p = 0.024), with neurotypical students (mean rank = 117.17) perceiving lighting conditions differently to neurodivergent students (mean rank = 149.33).

The majority of responses tended towards the brighter end of the scale – most users perceived the lighting in the NTL as ranging from ‘normal’ to ‘very bright’, as can be seen in Fig. 3. In a laboratory, it is necessary for the lighting to be bright enough to facilitate experiments, particularly those experiments that require the identification of a colour change or for paying attention to measurements on pieces of glassware. The NTL uses LED lights designed to be shadowless. It was acknowledged by staff involved in the laboratory design process that this lighting is “much brighter by all rights” and “it'll take [the students] a bit of getting used to”. Despite its brightness, the lighting is balanced in terms of the light spectrum. When the focus group were asked how having bright lights affects their laboratory experience, the students unanimously agreed that it is a necessity, although they accepted that it could contribute to overstimulation. Odedra and Soler (2024) have previously shown a student testimonial about bright lighting triggering headaches. Suggestions for adjustable lighting were dismissed by a member of the NTL design team due to potential safety concerns and the necessity for a uniformly and consistently bright environment, especially across the different sessions throughout the year.

Fig. 3 The perception of lighting in the Nucleus Teaching Laboratory, with the majority of respondents characterising it as Normal or Bright, and some respondents choosing the option Very Bright.

A separate Mann–Whitney U test showed there was no significant difference in the perceived importance of working in an area with natural lighting within the NTL (U = 1850.500, p = 0.120), with neurotypical students suggesting (mean rank = 117.99) similar importance of natural lighting to neurodivergent students (mean rank = 140.88).

Fig. 4 illustrates the perceived importance of working in an area with natural lighting in the NTL, highlighting students' preference. This was echoed in the focus group with the suggestion that it makes the laboratory space a more pleasant environment to be in. Those involved in the design of the laboratory emphasised the inconsistency natural lighting introduces, especially with geographically driven seasonal differences, and advocated for the availability of artificial lighting in laboratory design. A proposed solution of providing dimmer light switches in each fume hood to give students control over lighting intensity may also offer energy-saving benefits but requires further investigation, as do other potential solutions, such as the use of tinted safety goggles or altering the colour temperature of the light.

Fig. 4 The distribution of answers characterising the importance of receiving natural light in the Nucleus Teaching Laboratory.

Smell

A Mann–Whitney U test revealed there to be no significant difference in the perception of smell within the NTL (U = 2443.00, p = 0.568), with neurotypical students (mean rank = 120.71) perceiving the strength of smell similarly to neurodivergent students (mean rank = 112.67).

Respondents primarily characterised the smells in the NTL as ‘normal’ and ‘strong’, as can be seen in Fig. 5. Comments made in the focus group can help explain the spread of responses – students identified the smelliness of particular experiments, so the timing of the survey release might have affected the students’ responses. The smell, and the strength of smell, from certain chemicals are inevitable in the laboratory environment, and despite fume hoods easing the effects, they impact students. Thematic analysis of survey responses allowed key themes to be crafted, notably concerning health and wellbeing. Many students who were unfamiliar with such environments found strong scents concerning due to increased worry about potential toxicity or intense smells being headache triggers or leading to light-headedness. In response, suggestions posited to the focus group centred on education and adaptation rather than odour removal. The focus group agreed that providing a brief introduction to what to expect could alleviate worries. Offering students the option to step out of the laboratory for fresh air to mitigate the impact of odours on both physical and mental wellbeing was also perceived positively, and the suggested introduction of a designated general ‘cool off’ space received positive feedback during the focus group, with students saying some already take short breaks outside the laboratory when feeling emotionally, mentally, and/or cognitively overwhelmed. This was also noted by Washbourn (2024). Students reported exiting the laboratory, and in some instances, using a toilet break. Participants felt that having a specific space within or near the laboratory space where they can “decompress” would be beneficial, with some mentioning that this should also be clearly signposted to in introductory materials.

Fig. 5 The perception of smell in the Nucleus Teaching Laboratory, with the majority of respondents saying that they perceive the strength of smell to be Normal or Strong.

Touch

One prevalent concern regarding touch centred on the discomfort associated with wearing gloves, a recurrent theme generated through analysis of the free-text answers provided to the survey. Students reported sensations ranging from discomfort to feeling claustrophobic, with these feelings exacerbating stress levels. As many students are new to wearing skin-hugging nitrile gloves for extended periods, an adjustment period is expected. However, some students have genuine sensory issues with touch that warrant attention. The survey and focus group discussions highlighted alternative glove options; an example from a focus-group participant shows how nitrile gloves can act as sensory triggers – “I have been offered fabric gloves… I really find it hard to wear the gloves for three hours due to my sensory issues”. Options of using fabric gloves underneath the nitrile gloves or aloe gloves were particularly beneficial for students with sensory sensitivities or skin conditions like eczema. The availability of these alternatives was found to not be widely known and should be made more apparent to all students in the future to accommodate various sensory needs.

The next most common themes were touching glassware, equipment, and chemicals. Students found this discomforting as they felt they could harm themselves due to the “stinging” sensation of acetone or the worry about spillage of corrosive chemicals. Similarly, wearing safety goggles posed challenges as “they're uncomfortable after a while”, especially for those unaccustomed to eyewear. For those who wear glasses and who did not own prescription safety goggles, the double layering of eyewear could also increase discomfort and sensory stimulation. Issues associated with wearing laboratory coats were comparatively less frequently mentioned, though when it was, the primary focus was on discomfort caused by layering with clothing underneath.

Overall sensory stimulation

A Mann–Whitney U test revealed there to be no significant difference in the ratings given for overall sensory stimulation within the NTL (U = 2214.000, p = 0.750), with neurotypical students’ (mean rank = 119.66) overall sensory stimulation scores being similar to those of neurodivergent students (mean rank = 123.57).

Fig. 6 illustrates the distribution of results in a bell curve, showing that most students found the overall sensory stimulation in the middle of the scale spanning from ‘1 = not stimulating’ to ‘5 = extremely stimulating’. However, there is still a proportion of students who perceived the laboratory to be a 4 or 5 score in terms of sensory stimulation – sensory stimulation within the laboratory environment not only influences neurodivergent students but many other individuals who use this space. Indeed, in answer to a different question, 19.4% of survey participants said they had experienced sensory overload or discomfort within the laboratory.

Fig. 6 The distribution of the overall sensory stimulation ratings in the Nucleus Teaching Laboratory (e.g., noise, lighting, chemical smells), with 1 being Not Stimulating At All and 5 being Extremely Stimulating.

This question on overall sensory stimulation was used to give a full overview of the laboratory environment, and it was located towards the end of the survey to allow students to consider all the different aspects within the laboratory, including the four senses and other attributions mentioned in previous questions (Table S6 in the SI summarises the themes developed from thematic analysis of provided descriptions of sensory overload experiences). While each individual aspect of the laboratory might seem insignificant when viewed independently, their collective perception could yield a distinct impact, including increased levels of distraction and anxiety, physical discomfort, and detrimental effects on participation and learning (see Table S7 in the SI). This concept of multiple sensory triggers working together has been developed previously in the areas of healthcare (Wung et al., 2018, among others), retail and consumer behaviour (Doucé and Adams, 2020), and for general higher education experiences, such as use of open study spaces (Van Hees et al., 2015). It is crucial to acknowledge the subjective nature of students' perceptions of the laboratory across all sections comparing neurodivergent to neurotypical students. For some, the laboratory environment may offer a sense of order and structure, serving as a calming environment through the chaos of everyday life. Conversely, for others, it could represent the most stressful part of their day, challenging their coping mechanisms. Meanwhile, for some, the sensory aspects of the laboratory may have little to no impact at all.

The concept of preparedness was a theme that was developed in focus group discussions. Currently, students are provided with online pre-laboratory work, such as an introductory video and virtual simulations of the experiment they will perform. Although the students felt like these were useful resources for reducing general anxiety and preparing for the laboratory session and the practical work (Seery et al., 2024), there was consensus that the introduction video, and other laboratory materials, could benefit by also having a focus on the laboratory environment, including aspects such as anticipated smells, explanations about different sounds, and other potential sensory triggers.

Other strategies that could be put in place include an introduction to the laboratory that allows students to explore the space in a relaxed and slow-paced manner before the start of the class. This is currently done for physically disabled students and some students who suffer from anxiety. There has also been some research into how virtual reality could be implemented to reduce the cognitive and sensory stress that the laboratory environment creates – recent work has showcased the ability to “virtually explore the laboratory space, with 360° interactive images, and explanations, there are sections dedicated to potential sensory triggers” (Stockwell et al., 2023).

Conclusions

This study explored the student perception of the Nucleus Teaching Laboratory and the potential triggers for sensory overload with a focus on areas that could potentially show differences between neurodivergent and neurotypical students.

Verbal communication was perceived to have the most significant sound impact on the student laboratory experience, with the majority of respondents describing noise levels as normal. A necessary balance between the distraction caused by verbal communication and improved learning interactions was identified. Lighting was generally perceived as ‘normal’ to ‘bright’, with students expressing a preference for natural lighting and the design team highlighting the need for bright, uniform, artificial lighting. Smell perception ranged from ‘normal’ to ‘strong’, eliciting some concerns about health and wellbeing, with a need for education and adaptation rather than complete odour removal. The primary touch-related issues centred around the sensory impact associated with disposable gloves and the levels of discomfort when wearing safety goggles for long periods.

Overall, the majority of respondents fell within the middle of the stimulation scale range, but a notable portion experienced a higher level of sensory discomfort. While many respondents found the laboratory experience as they expected and had adopted personal coping mechanisms, a significant number were adversely affected, leading to feelings of being overwhelmed or stressed. This negatively impacted their laboratory experience, potentially increasing the risk of accidents and being detrimental to their learning journeys.

Comparatively, neurodivergent students were not significantly more affected by sensory overload within the NTL, except in the lighting category, where a statistically significant difference in perception was observed. For this case specifically, this signposts the potential need for future research into how lighting can be improved to avoid sensory overload and examine where the correct balance lies between the preference for natural lighting and the technical benefits of operating under bright lighting conditions.

This research recommends general mitigations in a laboratory that could be implemented and then assessed to judge the impact on students. These mitigations, summarised in Fig. 7 alongside sense-specific suggestions previously discussed, include conducting induction walk-through talk-through sessions to familiarise students with its various aspects, establishing a designated ‘cool off’ space near the laboratory for students to retreat to if they feel overstimulated and need a moment to clear their heads, the formation of smaller laboratory groups tailored specifically for students experiencing sensory issues or difficulties, and exploring the benefits of using university-approved ear protection to reduce the effects of background noise. Training for demonstrators could also be explored to better address sensory overload and neurodivergent requirements (Sarju and Jones, 2021), which aligns with the importance of active allyship in the chemical sciences, as highlighted in RSC reports (The Royal Society of Chemistry (a), 2023; The Royal Society of Chemistry (b), 2024). It may also be beneficial to engage with the chemical industry to ascertain what mitigations are used in that setting and whether they could be replicated in the teaching laboratory environment.

Fig. 7 A summary of a number of possible actions that could be considered by laboratory course organisers and laboratory space designers to help mitigate the effects of sensory overload.

This investigation into sensory overload addresses a gap in qualitative and quantitative data on student experiences, and it shows that the student experience of the teaching laboratory environment is wide-ranging and that even modern teaching spaces can present challenges in accommodating sensory sensitivities. In most cases, there was no significant difference between students who self-identified as being neurotypical and those who self-identified as being neurodivergent, signalling that work on sensory overload could have beneficial effects for all students. A handful of specific suggestions discussed in the focus groups were presented, and this work can also facilitate subsequent studies to corroborate these findings and delve deeper into related sensory areas. For instance, this could include exploring in more detail and with a larger sample size if students with specific and/or clinically diagnosed neurodivergent conditions respond differently to laboratory environments. It would be valuable to understand how each specific condition perceives and is affected by the environment to establish if targeted mitigations tailored to individual needs are required. Whilst this study was performed in the Higher Education setting, the results have implications for practical chemistry education, and could lead to improved experiences and outcomes, across all levels.

Author contributions

SS and BEA designed the research project. SS carried out the research and analysed the data, and BEA reviewed the analysis. BEA provided resources and supervision. Both authors contributed to writing, reviewing, and editing the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for the study was provided by the School of Chemistry at the University of Edinburgh. The surveys were optional, anonymous, and completed by students with the understanding that responses would only be available in their raw form to the researchers. The participants were informed that their right to withdraw could be exercised by not submitting their responses upon completing the survey and/or by not engaging with future calls for participation. The gathering of e-mail addresses for taking part in the post-survey focus group was done using a Microsoft Forms link separate from the survey responses, thus maintaining survey response anonymity. BEA is an academic staff member at the institution where the study took place; the researcher/instructor duality was minimised with SS taking the lead in student-facing interactions. Informed consent was provided by participants answering the first question in the survey (see Section S2 of the SI for the full survey). A copy of the participant briefing that preceded the participation confirmation can be found in Section S8 of the SI. SS led the focus group, which further maintained BEA's distance as a researcher/instructor. Focus group participation followed the same principle of voluntariness and anonymity as the survey.

Data availability

The participants took part in the study with the understanding that their responses would remain anonymous and available in their raw form only to the researchers. Therefore, the raw data have not been made available.

Supplementary information is available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d5rp00305a.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank David August, Mairi Haddow, Chris Mowat, and the students in the Chemistry Education BSc Project Group 2023–2024 for their support and discussions. The authors would also like to thank Cate Anstöter, Kirsty Bain, Peter Kirsop, Uwe Schneider (all University of Edinburgh), Julia Sarju (University of York), and Michael Seery (University of Bristol) for their insights. Those involved in informal conversations about the work at numerous conferences and workshops, especially ViCE/PHEC 2024, shared their experiences and the effectiveness of various interventions, and the authors are grateful for those discussions. The authors also extend their thanks to the reviewers who helped strengthen the manuscript as part of the peer review process. Special thanks are due to the participants of the survey and focus group – their willingness to share their perspectives and experiences have been essential to the depth and breadth of this study.

References

1. Advance H. E., (2023), Equality in Higher Education: Students Statistical Report 2023, available at https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/news-and-views/equality-higher-education-statistical-reports-2023, accessed 15 November 2023.
2. Agustian H. Y., Gammelgaard B., Rangkuti M. A. and Niemann J., (2025), “I Feel Like a Real Chemist Now”: Epistemic Affect as a Fundamental Driver of Inquiry in the Chemistry Laboratory, Sci. Educ., 109, 722–744 DOI:10.1002/sce.21933.
3. Bowen C. W., (1999), Development and Score Validation of a Chemistry Laboratory Anxiety Instrument (CLAI) for College Chemistry Students, Educ. Psychol. Meas., 59, 171–185 DOI:10.1177/0013164499591012.
4. Braun V. and Clarke V., (2006), Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol., 3(2), 77–101 DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
5. Braun V. and Clarke V., (2022), Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide, London: SAGE Publications.
6. Braun V. and Clarke V., (2024), Supporting Best Practice in Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting in Palliative Medicine: A Review of Published Research and Introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG), Palliat. Med., 38, 608–616 DOI:10.1177/02692163241234800.
7. Byrne D., (2022), A Worked Example of Braun and Clarke's Approach to Reflexive Thematic Analysis, Quality Quantity, 56, 1391–1412 DOI:10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y.
8. Cabral D., n.d., How to Deal with Sensory Overload, available at https://www.loopearplugs.com/blogs/blog/how-to-deal-with-sensory-overload, accessed 23 February 2024.
9. Charlton J., (1998), Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment, Berkley: University of California Press.
10. Doucé L. and Adams C., (2020), Sensory Overload in a Shopping Environment: Not Every Sensory Modality Leads to too Much Stimulation, J. Retailing Consumer Services, 57, 102154 DOI:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102154.
11. Doyle N., (2020), Neurodiversity at Work: A Biopsychosocial Model and the Impact on Working Adults, Br. Med. Bull., 135, 108–125 DOI:10.1093/bmb/ldaa021.
12. Egambaram O., Hilton K., Leigh J., Richardson R., Sarju J., Slater A. and Turner B., (2022), The Future of Laboratory Chemistry Learning and Teaching Must be Accessible, J. Chem. Educ., 99, 3814–3821 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00328.
13. Flaherty A., (2022), The Chemistry Teaching Laboratory: A Sensory Overload Vortex for Students and Instructors? J. Chem. Educ., 99, 1775–1777 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00032.
14. Galloway K. R. and Bretz S. L., (2016), Video Episodes and Action Cameras in the Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory: Eliciting Student Perceptions of Meaningful Learning, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17, 139–155 10.1039/C5RP00196J.
15. Hudson D., (2017), How to Support Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder, available at https://edu.rsc.org/ideas/how-to-support-students-with-autism-spectrum-disorder/3008326.article, accessed 19 May 2025.
16. Khan M. A. H., Harrison T. G., Wajrak M., Grimshaw M., Schofield K. G., Trew A. J., Johal K., Morgan J., Shallcross Karen L., Sewry J. D., Davies-Coleman M. T. and Shallcross D. E., (2023), Flipping the Thinking on Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion. Why EDI Is Essential for the Development and Progression of the Chemical Sciences: A Case Study Approach, J. Chem. Educ., 100, 4279–4286 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00364.
17. Kurbanoglu N. I. and Akim A., (2010), The Relationships Between University Students’ Chemistry Laboratory Anxiety, Attitudes, and Self-efficacy Beliefs, Australian J. Teacher Educ., 35, 48–59 DOI:10.14221/ajte.2010v35n8.4.
18. Marino M. A., Wisnewski F., Alexis A. and Reilly C. (2025), Multi-sensory Learning in the Undergraduate Chemistry Lab: The Case for Smell, J. Chem. Educ., 102, 2592–2599 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01545.
19. Marzolla M. C., Borghans L., Ebus J., Gwiazda M., van Heugten C. and Hurks P., (2024), The Impact of Noise Exposure, Time Pressure, and Cognitive Load on Objective Task Performance and Subjective Sensory Overload and Fatigue, J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol., 46, 1001–1014 DOI:10.1080/13803395.2025.2458539.
20. Odedra S. and Soler L., (2024), Understanding Student Lab Learning: How Social, Cognitive, & Sensory Loads Impact Anxiety & Confidence in STEM Labs, presented at Horizons in STEM on 26 June 2024, available at https://figshare.edgehill.ac.uk/articles/presentation/Understanding_Student_Lab_Learning_How_Social_Cognitive_Sensory_Loads_Impact_Anxiety_Confidence_in_STEM_Labs/25867606/1?file=48787147, accessed on 01 September 2025 DOI:10.25416/NTR.25867606.v1.
21. Page C. and Meyer D., (2000), Applied Research Design for Business and Management, London: McGraw-Hill Education.
22. Paterson D., (2017), Making Practical Work More Effective, available at https://edu.rsc.org/feature/making-practical-work-more-effective/3008027.article, accessed 24 January 2024.
23. Pells R., (2022), How Science Can Do Better for Neurodivergent People, Nature, d41586 DOI:10.1038/d41586-022-04248-5.
24. Rummey C., Clemons T. D. and Spagnoli D., (2019), The Impact of Several Demographic Factors on Chemistry Laboratory Anxiety and Self-efficacy in Students’ First Year of University, Student Success, 10, 87–98 DOI:10.5204/ssj.v10i1.1104.
25. Sarju J. P., (2021), Nothing About Us Without Us – Towards Genuine Inclusion of Disabled Scientists and Science Students Post Pandemic, Chem. – Eur. J., 27, 10489–10494 DOI:10.1002/chem.202100268.
26. Sarju J., (2023), Partnerships Striving for Accessibility in Chemistry Labs, presented at The Chemistry Laboratory: Evaluation, Assessment, and Research Symposium 2023, held online on 04 May 2023, conference archive available at https://clearsymposium.weebly.com/clear-2023.html, accessed 01 September 2025.
27. Sarju J. P. and Jones L. C., (2021), Improving the Equity of Undergraduate Practical Laboratory Chemistry: Incorporating Inclusive Teaching and Accessibility Awareness into Chemistry Graduate Teaching Assistant Training, J. Chem. Educ., 99, 487–493 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00501.
28. Scheydt S., Müller Staub M., Frauenfelder F., Nielsen G. H., Behrens J. and Needham I., (2017), Sensory Overload: A Concept Analysis, Int. J. Mental Health Nursing, 26, 110–120 DOI:10.1111/inm.12303.
29. Seery M. K., (2020), Establishing the Laboratory as the Place to Learn How to Do Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 97, 1511–1514 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00764.
30. Seery M. K., Agustian H. Y., Christiansen F. V., Gammelgaard B. and Malm R. H., (2024), 10 Guiding Principles for Learning in the Laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 25, 383–402 10.1039/D3RP00245D.
31. Stockwell P., Soler L. and Odedra S., (2023), Can an Interactive Virtual Orientation e-Resource Reduce Cognitive and Sensory Loads to Support the Transition to Higher Education? presented at the 16th Annual University of Glasgow Learning and Teaching Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, available at https://easychair.org/smart-program/LTConf23/, accessed 01 September 2025.
32. Supalo C. A., Schmid S., Bhattacharya J. and Motion A., (2023), Technology Solutions to Support Blind Students in the Chemistry Laboratory, Nat. Rev. Chem., 7, 823–824 DOI:10.1038/s41570-023-00559-x.
33. Szulc J. M., Davies J., Tomczak M. T. and McGregor F.-L., (2021), AMO Perspectives on the Well-being of Neurodivergent Human Capital, Employee Relations, 43, 858–872 DOI:10.1108/ER-09-2020-0446.
34. The Royal Society of Chemistry (a), (2023), Disability in the Chemical Sciences, available at https://www.rsc.org/policy-evidence-campaigns/inclusion-diversity/surveys-reports-campaigns/disability-in-the-chemical-sciences/, accessed 10 December 2023.
35. The Royal Society of Chemistry (b), (2024), Neurodiversity in the Chemical Sciences, available at https://www.rsc.org/policy-evidence-campaigns/inclusion-diversity/surveys-reports-campaigns/neurodiversity-in-chemical-sciences/, accessed 19 May 2025.
36. The University of Edinburgh (a), (2024), The Nucleus Building, available at https://science-engineering.ed.ac.uk/nucleus-building, accessed 19 May 2025.
37. The University of Edinburgh (b), (2024), Support for Neurodiversity, available at https://equality-diversity.ed.ac.uk/disabled-staff-support/neurodiversity-support, accessed 6 November 2023.
38. Van Hees V., Moyson T. and Roeyers H., (2015), Higher Education Experiences of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Challenges, Benefits and Support Needs, J. Autism Dev. Disorders, 45, 1673–1688.
39. Washbourn G., (2024), Anxiety and Sensory Overload: A Perspective on How Chemistry Undergraduate Students Perceive Their Time in the Lab, Dev. Acad. Practice, 2024, 41–45 DOI:10.3828/dap.2024.10.
40. Wung S. F., Malone D. C. and Szalacha L., (2018), Sensory Overload and Technology in Critical Care, Crit. Care Nurs. Clin. North Am., 30, 179–190 DOI:10.1016/j.cnc.2018.02.001.

---

Footnote

† Undergraduate project student.

---