Properties (14)

Id 0c4735c9-84ef-434f-a2da-01e3a2e512fa

Year 2025

Abstract Misophonia is a condition characterized by intense negative emotional reactions to trigger sounds and related stimuli. In this study, adult listeners (N = 15) with a self-reported history of misophonia symptoms and a control group without misophonia (N = 15) completed listening judgements of recorded misophonia trigger stimuli using a standard scale. Participants also completed an established questionnaire of misophonia symptoms, the Misophonia Questionnaire (MQ). Summed scores of the listening task were significantly correlated with overall MQ score. The misophonia group had significantly higher listening scores and MQ scores compared to controls. These findings indicate applications for psychoacoustic methods in the assessment of misophonia.

Cssclasses

purpleRed

Aliases

(Kirby et al., 2025)

Import Date 01-25-2026

Zotero Note Link Generated true

Checked For Zettle Notes true

Dv Authors Benjamin J. Kirby, Alaina Cunningham, Olivia Montou Zant,

Dv Initial Source Misophonia MOC

Dv Status #status/Bare-bones-review

Dv Limitations • Longer stimulus duration (∼10s) compared to prior studies (1–3s) may affect identification ease and aversiveness ratings. • Absence of control sounds (neutral, pleasant, or unpleasant non-trigger stimuli) limits interpretability for differential diagnosis. • Open-ended identification task may introduce subjectivity; closed-set alternatives could improve standardization but may reduce ecological validity.

Dv Future Directions • Develop a standardized corpus of high-quality trigger sounds for use in clinical assessment. • Evaluate performance across populations (e.g., children, individuals with autism). • Examine effects of shorter duration and different presentation levels to optimize clinical utility.

Dv Relevance • study used lab based psychoacoustic test to evaluate Misophonia severity, finding that there is support for the use of psychoacoustic methods in the assessment of Misophonia • fairly interesting if not predictable results, with implications for the use of aversiveness scales and the standard types of recorded trigger sounds ( orifical) in the assessment of Misophonia

•

Psychoacoustic assessment of misophonia

Status:: #status/Bare-bones-review

Metadata

Item Type: #journalArticle
Authors:: Benjamin J. Kirby, Alaina Cunningham, Olivia Montou Zant,
Date Added: September 16, 2025
URL: https://pubs.aip.org/jel/article/5/9/094401/3362066/Psychoacoustic-assessment-of-misophonia
DOI: 10.1121/10.0039238
Cite Key: kirbyPsychoacousticAssessmentMisophonia2025
Tags:: #Bare-bones-review-🦴 , #Misophonia,
PDF Attachments

Abstract


Background/Purpose	Background- • Misophonia is a distinct auditory condition characterized by severe aversive reactions to specific repetitive sounds, especially those related to orofacial movements. • Previous research has shown neurophysiological bases for misophonia, including altered connectivity involving the anterior insular cortex and orofacial motor regions. • Diagnostic methods are currently limited to self-report questionnaires; physiological and psychoacoustic methods are underused despite potential advantages. • Prior large-scale online psychoacoustic studies lacked control over experimental conditions and participant hearing status, limiting interpretability. • Questionnaires such as MQ, A-Miso-S, and MisoQuest are widely used but often lack convergent validity with direct stimulus-based measures. Purpose- • Evaluate severity of misophonia symptoms using a lab-based psychoacoustic task with validated, self-reported misophonic individuals and matched controls. • Assess convergent validity of aversiveness ratings of trigger sounds with MQ scores. • Improve methodological rigor over previous online studies by controlling stimulus presentation conditions and hearing status.
Participants/samples	• N = 30 total participants: • Misophonia group: N = 15 (ages 21–60; 4 males, 11 females), self-reported history of misophonia. • Control group: N = 15 (ages 20–30; 1 male, 14 females), no history of misophonia. • Normal hearing confirmed via audiometric screening.
Measures	• Misophonia Questionnaire (MQ): Assesses sound sensitivity across three subscales: symptom strength (Part 1), emotional/behavioral reactions (Part 2), and severity (Part 3). • Listening task: Subjective aversiveness ratings (0–4 Likert scale, with half-steps allowed) of 18 common trigger sounds. • Behavioral measures: Sound identification accuracy to validate stimulus recognizability.
Procedures	• Stimuli: 18 recorded trigger sounds (10–12 seconds each), including chewing, slurping, pen clicking, nasal sounds, etc., recorded in a soundproof booth. • Presentation: Stimuli played via high-fidelity headphones; participants could adjust volume for comfort. • Tasks: • Aversiveness rating for each sound. • Open-ended identification of each sound. • Completion of MQ. • Analysis: Correlational analyses and between-group comparisons using regression, t-tests, and non-parametric tests due to non-normality of some measures.
Results	• Strong correlation between summed aversiveness scores and MQ total score [r = .60, p < .01]. • Moderate correlation between aversiveness scores and self-rated severity [r = .50, p = .01]. • MQ total score strongly correlated with self-rated severity [r = .72, p < .01]. • Misophonia group had significantly higher: • Aversiveness scores (M = 40.5 vs. 32.5; p = .03), • MQ scores (M = 28.6 vs. 17.5; p < .01), • Severity scores (M = 5.93 vs. 2.73; p < .01). • 98.5% correct identification rate of stimuli in the misophonia group. • Low aversiveness scores were observed when stimuli were misidentified, consistent with past findings.
Discussion/Limits	Conclusion- • Psychoacoustic aversiveness scores align well with questionnaire-based assessments, supporting convergent validity. • The use of well-identified, ecologically valid trigger sounds improves reliability and discriminatory power of the task. • Psychoacoustic tasks may serve as valuable adjunct tools in misophonia diagnosis and assessment, especially in controlled clinical environments.
Limitations::	• Longer stimulus duration (∼10s) compared to prior studies (1–3s) may affect identification ease and aversiveness ratings. • Absence of control sounds (neutral, pleasant, or unpleasant non-trigger stimuli) limits interpretability for differential diagnosis. • Open-ended identification task may introduce subjectivity; closed-set alternatives could improve standardization but may reduce ecological validity.
Future Directions::	• Develop a standardized corpus of high-quality trigger sounds for use in clinical assessment. • Evaluate performance across populations (e.g., children, individuals with autism). • Examine effects of shorter duration and different presentation levels to optimize clinical utility.
Relevance::	• study used lab based psychoacoustic test to evaluate Misophonia severity, finding that there is support for the use of psychoacoustic methods in the assessment of Misophonia • fairly interesting if not predictable results, with implications for the use of aversiveness scales and the standard types of recorded trigger sounds ( orifical) in the assessment of Misophonia

Notes

key terms

Misophonia – A condition involving intense negative emotional and physical responses to specific trigger sounds, often orofacial in nature (e.g., chewing, slurping).
Psychoacoustic assessment – Experimental methods involving controlled auditory stimulus presentation and subjective ratings to measure sound perception or aversiveness.
Misophonia Questionnaire (MQ) – A validated self-report scale assessing sound sensitivities, emotional responses, and severity of misophonia.
Trigger sounds – Sounds that provoke negative reactions in individuals with misophonia; commonly includes eating, tapping, nasal sounds, etc.

my engagement notes

my questions

my comments

Bookmarks

reading notes

Trigger Sensitivity Breakdown (MQ Part 1)

100% sensitive to eating sounds.
73% sensitive to tapping.
60% sensitive to nasal sounds.
Other reported sensitivities: rustling, throat sounds, consonants, environmental sounds.
Unique “Other” triggers: rattling coins, cutlery on dishes, specific speech inflections/music phrases.

Stimuli List (see Table 1, pg. 5)

High proportion of mouth-related sounds (10/18), reinforcing stronger correlations with misophonia traits.
Common stimuli included: Crunchy, Slurping, Smacking, Typing, Rustling, Plastic bag, Pen clicking, Snoring, etc.

zettelkasten

Kirby 2025 findings on the use of psychoacoustic tasks in Misophonia