Is the use of the construct "loss in" acceptable in the following context?

Is the use of the construct loss in acceptable in this context?

Symptoms of stroke include loss in sensory perception

According to Grammarly, 'loss in' should be replaced with 'loss of'. But there are various instances where such a construct is used in practice.

Examples:

• ...to compensate for the loss in perception through the multi-sensory-integration ...
  (phys.org)
• University of Florida study reveals loss in sensory perception may not be linked to aging
  (ScienceDaily)
• Furthermore, normal aging appears to be associated with loss in sensory functioning...
  (Springer)

This construct seems to by widely accepted in the scientific community. I'm not sure why Grammarly would flag this as a critical issue. What is an expert's take on this?

Solution 1:

The two originating phrases are "a loss of" and "a loss in". The latter is used normally with partial losses, while the former tends to be for complete losses. (Jim did comment on this briefly above.)

It's not a demotion to switch jobs, but it might be a loss in income.
She wanted to stay home with the baby, but her loss of income for the family would be too great.

My job involved daily use of headphones: a guaranteed loss in hearing.
The explosion blinded him temporarily, but caused a permanent loss of hearing.

Of course, people will say anything colloquially...the English language has suffered some unfortunate losses in quality...