Properties (13)

Year 2025

Cssclasses

purpleRed

Aliases

(Chalotra et al., 2025)

Key Terms

Misophonia
Extended High-Frequency Audiometry (EHFA)
A-MISO-S-R
Type-A Tympanogram
Otoacoustic Emissions (OAEs)
Salience Network

Import Date 10-18-2025

Template Version Notes •corrected error in rendering the linked PDF in metadata section • added the tag “noted” to the definition of comments to ignore ( like with the “in another note” tag. this is so that when making notes on chapters of a textbook, i can still export things for manual addition to the obsidian note without having to keep track of what has already been added ). Also moved the version notes to the yaml section • this version added the bookmarks section to auto collect all bookmarks. it also dropped the template auto fill of the initial source field because we never got it working and just overwrote it manually anyway. this version also added logic to handle “in another note” tag. annotations marked with this are completely ignored. used when i have information covered in a bigger note, but still want to highlight that part in text for visual clarity (so as to avoid duplicates of the same information) • running the import more then once will overwrite the file, so do not import again if you have made changes in obsidian that are not in the zotero article.

Dv Authors Suman Chalotra, Nirali Chauhan, Deepa Valame,

Dv Initial Source >

Dv Status #status/Bare-bones-review

Dv Limitations • Small sample size limits generalizability • Exclusion of participants with recent stress/anxiety may limit applicability to broader misophonia population • EHFA was the sole auditory test; further auditory processing tests are recommended

Dv Future Directions • Larger, more diverse samples • Integration of psychological and emotional profiling with auditory assessments • Exploration of interventions targeting auditory hypersensitivity

Dv Relevance • an audiological study that looked at hearing thresholds for controls (group 1) vs Misophonics (group 2), finding higher sensitivity (lower thresholds) for Misophonics in the 8-14kHz range, suggesting differences in central auditory processing differences • these results conflict with the Kumar and Jastreboff ideas of normal auditory processing. the authors note some special test of hearing not used in standard assessments (EHFA) that they used in this study. • a good source for some audiological findings that stand out against the usual Jastreboff stuff.

Checked For Zettle Notes true

•

Evaluation of extended high frequency thresholds in individuals with misophonia

Status:: #status/Bare-bones-review

Metadata

Item Type: #journalArticle
Authors:: Suman Chalotra, Nirali Chauhan, Deepa Valame,
Date Added: October 17, 2025
URL: https://ejo.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43163-025-00912-5
DOI: 10.1186/s43163-025-00912-5
Cite Key: chalotraEvaluationExtendedHigh2025
Tags:: #audiology, #Bare-bones-review-🦴, #cortical-processing, #extended-high-frequency-audiometry, #heightened-hearing-sensitivity, #Misophonia,
PDF Attachments

Abstract


Background/Purpose	Background- • Misophonia is linked to strong emotional responses to specific auditory (and sometimes visual) stimuli. • Despite normal standard audiograms, individuals with misophonia often report sound hypersensitivity, suggesting central auditory processing abnormalities. • Prior research shows atypical cortical activation in response to trigger sounds and normal function of peripheral auditory systems (e.g., medial olivocochlear system). • Standard audiometry may not detect the auditory sensitivities in misophonia; EHFA could uncover differences not visible in conventional testing. Purpose- • To compare extended high-frequency hearing thresholds (9–16 kHz) between individuals with misophonia and matched controls. • To evaluate the potential of EHFA as a diagnostic tool for identifying auditory hypersensitivity in misophonia.
Participants/samples	• Total N = 30 (15 with misophonia, 15 controls) • Age range: 18–54 years (mean = 32.01, SD = 11.3) • Inclusion criteria: Normal hearing (≤25 dB HL), no recent psychological stress or known neurological/psychiatric disorders • Gender: Group 1 = 8 females; Group 2 = 9 females
Measures	• Audiometric tests: Air and bone conduction thresholds (250–8000 Hz), EHFA (9000–16000 Hz) • Middle ear function: Tympanometry (Type-A) and acoustic reflexes • Cochlear function: Transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) • Misophonia assessment: A-MISO-S administered in English
Procedures	Stimuli Used: • Pure tones across conventional and extended high-frequency ranges • Clicks for otoacoustic emission testing Task/Experiment: • Audiometry conducted in sound-treated rooms using GSI Audiostar Pro audiometer and Sennheiser HDA 300 headphones • EHFA performed using the modified Hughson-Westlake procedure • Misophonia symptoms categorized based on A-MISO-S score (1–24 = misophonia group)
Results	• No significant inter-ear differences; data pooled across ears • Individuals with misophonia had significantly better (lower) thresholds at 8–14 kHz (p < 0.05), but not at 16 kHz • Effect sizes ranged from moderate to large (Cohen's d = 0.54–0.75) • No significant age differences between groups
Discussion/Limits	Conclusion- • Individuals with misophonia show enhanced sensitivity in extended high-frequency hearing, indicating central auditory processing differences. • Results align with neuroimaging studies showing increased cortical activation in misophonia, suggesting hyperreactivity to specific frequencies. • EHFA may help differentiate misophonia from similar auditory conditions like tinnitus or hyperacusis.
Limitations::	• Small sample size limits generalizability • Exclusion of participants with recent stress/anxiety may limit applicability to broader misophonia population • EHFA was the sole auditory test; further auditory processing tests are recommended
Future Directions::	• Larger, more diverse samples • Integration of psychological and emotional profiling with auditory assessments • Exploration of interventions targeting auditory hypersensitivity
Relevance::	• an audiological study that looked at hearing thresholds for controls (group 1) vs Misophonics (group 2), finding higher sensitivity (lower thresholds) for Misophonics in the 8-14kHz range, suggesting differences in central auditory processing differences • these results conflict with the Kumar and Jastreboff ideas of normal auditory processing. the authors note some special test of hearing not used in standard assessments (EHFA) that they used in this study. • a good source for some audiological findings that stand out against the usual Jastreboff stuff.

Notes

key terms and concepts:

Misophonia – A condition characterized by strong emotional and physiological responses to specific sounds, often leading to distress and functional impairment.
Extended High-Frequency Audiometry (EHFA) – An assessment of hearing thresholds beyond the conventional frequency range (>8 kHz), potentially identifying subtle auditory sensitivities.
A-MISO-S (Amsterdam Misophonia Scale - Structured) – A clinician-administered diagnostic tool for assessing misophonia severity; scores from 0–28 categorize symptom severity.
Type-A Tympanogram – Indicates normal middle ear function, classified under Jerger’s classification system.
Otoacoustic Emissions (OAEs) – Sounds generated by the cochlea used to assess cochlear (outer hair cell) function.
Salience Network – A brain network involved in detecting and filtering emotionally significant stimuli; implicated in misophonia-related sensory-emotional integration.

my engagement notes

my questions

my comments

the authors suggest the observed Misophonic sensitivity might be the result of neurophysiological adaptation, producing enhanced perceptual acuity toward specific sounds (specifically in high frequency range). they go on to suggest that these perceptual changes might be driven by cog/neural processes preferentially amplifying certain auditory stim, which enhances the Misophonic response.
- this implies that 1) all trigger sounds are in the high freqs range , and 2) amplification of sounds happens at a point in the processing where source identification has occurred ( otherwise how could it have a preference? )
- these are both testable predictions that could be the bases of a future RQ. (page 5)