Properties (11)
Id 8b84fc25-ec50-44a0-ab3b-7b630a95af28
Year 2025
Abstract Misophonia is a condition characterized by intense, involuntary distress or anger in response to specific sounds, often leading to irritation or aggression. While the condition is recognized for its emotional and behavioral impacts, little is known about its physiological and perceptual effects. The current study aimed to explore the physiological correlates and perceptual consequences of misophonia through a combination of electrophysiological, perceptual, and cognitive assessments. Seventeen individuals with misophonia and sixteen control participants without the condition were compared. Participants completed a comprehensive battery of tests, including (a) cortical event-related potentials (ERPs) to assess neural responses to standard and deviant auditory stimuli, (b) the spatial release from the speech-on-speech masking (SRM) paradigm to evaluate speech segregation in background noise, and (c) the flanker task to measure selective attention and cognitive control. The results revealed that individuals with misophonia exhibited significantly smaller mean peak amplitudes of the N1 and N2 components in response to oddball tones compared to controls. This suggests a potential underlying neurobiological deficit in misophonia patients, as these components are associated with early auditory processing. However, no significant differences between each group were observed in the P1 and P2 components regarding oddball tones or in any ERP components in response to standard tones. Despite these altered neural responses, the misophonia group did not show differences in hearing thresholds, speech perception abilities, or cognitive function compared to the controls. These findings suggest that while misophonia may involve distinct neurophysiological changes, particularly in early auditory processing, it does not necessarily lead to perceptual deficits in speech perception or cognitive function.
Cssclasses
- purpleRed
Aliases
- (Patro et al., 2025)
Import Date 08-20-2025
Dv Future Directions • Expand to more diverse samples and severe misophonia cases. • Use ecologically valid stimuli (e.g., chewing sounds). • Examine longitudinal trajectories of misophonia-related neural responses. • Investigate intervention strategies targeting early auditory processing differences. • use auditory attention tasks • use wider rage of neurophysiological measures (components/locations) to get more info on Misophonia neural mechanisms
Dv Relevance • another EEG study on Misophonia using ERPs • lack of behavioral data supporting abnormal attention but did find EEG results supporting it (reduced N1) in line with (Schröder et al., 2014). this mismatch lead them to conclude that either the Behavioral impairments in misophonia are to subtle to detect through behavioral measures, or that the specific measure they used (a visual flanker) is not appropriate to look at the deficiencies in Misophonia specifically. • good source for future directions involving more EEG stuff + attention focused tasks.
Dv Limitations • Small, highly skewed sample (mostly female, young adults). • Trigger sounds not directly tested; deviant tones may not reflect ecologically valid misophonia triggers. • did not account for possible comorbidities in the sample • ERP analysis focused on only cortical resposnes ( no brainstem or other auditory potentials) which could give more info on the miso response • Cross-sectional design - cannot establish causality.• Attention was only assessed with the flanker task ( a visual thing) which might not generalize to the auditory nature of Misophonia • using the A-MISO-S as the only Misophonia measure introduces issues of self reporting. additionally, I don't like the A-MISO-S so...
Checked For Zettle Notes true
Zotero Note Link Generated true
•
Investigating Neurophysiological, Perceptual, and Cognitive Mechanisms in Misophonia
Status:: #status/reviewed
Metadata
- Item Type: #journalArticle
- Authors: Chhayakanta Patro, Emma Wasko, Prashanth Prabhu, Nirmal Kumar Srinivasan,
- Date Added: April 23, 2025
- URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/14/3/238
- DOI: 10.3390/biology14030238
- Cite Key: patroInvestigatingNeurophysiologicalPerceptual2025
- Tags: #Misophonia, #auditory-evoked-potentials, #mismatch-negativity, #spatial-release-from-masking, #EEG
- PDF Attachments
Abstract
| Background/Purpose | Background- • Misophonia produces severe emotional/behavioral distress, but physiological and perceptual mechanisms remain underexplored. • Prior neuroimaging implicates hyperactivity in anterior insular cortex, ACC, and temporal cortex. • ERP studies suggest altered early auditory processing (reduced N1 amplitude to deviant sounds), but broader perceptual/cognitive consequences are unclear. Purpose- • To test whether misophonia is associated with: • Neurophysiological abnormalities in auditory processing (via ERP oddball paradigm, MMN). • Perceptual differences in speech-in-noise performance (via SRM). • Cognitive control deficits (via flanker task). |
| Participants/samples | • N = 33 (17 misophonia, 16 controls). • Ages 18–30 (M ≈ 24); predominantly female (32/33). • Misophonia severity: A-MISO-S scores 5–23 (range: mild → extreme). • Screening: audiometry ensured normal hearing thresholds. |
| Measures | • ERPs – Cortical responses (P1, N1, P2, N2) to standard vs. deviant tones. • Spatial Release from Masking(SRM) – Target-to-Masker Ratio (TMR) thresholds were used to quantify speech perception in noise. • Stimuli: Five-word semantically unpredictable sentences in the format <name> <verb> <number> <adjective> <object>.• Target: Always began with the call-sign “Jane.” • Maskers: Competing sentences spoken by other talkers, matched in structure. • Voices: Female voices (f0 = 175–200 Hz), randomly paired across trials. • Speech levels: Maskers fixed at 70 dB SPL; target level adaptively adjusted. • Flanker task – Completion times, accuracy, and conflict cost (incongruent – congruent). • A-MISO-S – Misophonia severity rating. |
| Procedures | • ERP: Oddball paradigm with 600 Hz tones (standard = binaural, deviant = interaural phase shift). • SRM: • Stimuli & Task: Participants identified five-word target sentences beginning with “Jane”, presented with competing masker sentences (female voices, semantically unpredictable). • Presentation: Delivered over headphones with spatial cues simulated using HRTFs. • Conditions: • Colocated: Target and maskers at 0° azimuth. • Spatially separated: Target at 0°, maskers at ±15° azimuths. • Levels & Thresholds: Maskers fixed at 70 dB SPL, target level adaptively adjusted via one-up/one-down staircase to determine the Target-to-Masker Ratio (TMR) at 50% correct. • Outcome: SRM = TMRcolocated – TMRspatial, representing the speech perception benefit from spatial separation. • Flanker task: Arrow orientation discrimination with congruent/incongruent flankers. |
| Results | • Audiometry: No group differences; normal thresholds across both groups. • ERP: • Misophonia group had significantly reduced N1 and N2 amplitudes to deviant tones. • ∆N1 and MMN amplitudes significantly lower in misophonia; correlated with symptom severity. • No latency differences (timing intact). • SRM: Both groups showed spatial benefit; no group differences in TMR thresholds or SRM magnitude. • Flanker task: Both groups showed slower responses in incongruent vs. congruent trials; no group differences in accuracy, RT, or conflict cost. • Correlations: Higher A-MISO-S scores associated with reduced MMN amplitudes (robust negative correlation). |
| Discussion/Limits | Conclusion- • Misophonia is linked to neurophysiological differences in early auditory processing (reduced N1/N2, diminished MMN). • No deficits observed in hearing sensitivity, speech-in-noise perception, or domain-general cognitive control. • Neural differences may represent aberrant salience attribution to deviant sounds rather than broad perceptual/cognitive impairments. |
| Limitations:: | • Small, highly skewed sample (mostly female, young adults). • Trigger sounds not directly tested; deviant tones may not reflect ecologically valid misophonia triggers. • did not account for possible comorbidities in the sample • ERP analysis focused on only cortical resposnes ( no brainstem or other auditory potentials) which could give more info on the miso response • Cross-sectional design - cannot establish causality. • Attention was only assessed with the flanker task ( a visual thing) which might not generalize to the auditory nature of Misophonia • using the A-MISO-S as the only Misophonia measure introduces issues of self reporting. additionally, I don't like the A-MISO-S so... |
| Future Directions:: | • Expand to more diverse samples and severe misophonia cases. • Use ecologically valid stimuli (e.g., chewing sounds). • Examine longitudinal trajectories of misophonia-related neural responses. • Investigate intervention strategies targeting early auditory processing differences. • use auditory attention tasks • use wider rage of neurophysiological measures (components/locations) to get more info on Misophonia neural mechanisms |
| Relevance:: | • another EEG study on Misophonia using ERPs • lack of behavioral data supporting abnormal attention but did find EEG results supporting it (reduced N1) in line with (Schröder et al., 2014). this mismatch lead them to conclude that either the Behavioral impairments in misophonia are to subtle to detect through behavioral measures, or that the specific measure they used (a visual flanker) is not appropriate to look at the deficiencies in Misophonia specifically. • good source for future directions involving more EEG stuff + attention focused tasks. |
Notes
key terms and concepts:
- A-MISO-S (Amsterdam Misophonia Scale) – Adapted from Y-BOCS, measures misophonia symptom severity across distress, control, interference, and avoidance.
- Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) – Brain responses to sensory stimuli, measured with EEG; used here to assess auditory processing.
- Flanker Task – Cognitive paradigm assessing selective attention and inhibition by requiring responses to a central target amid distractors.
- Head-Related Transfer Functions (HRTFs) – Acoustic filters that model how sound waves are shaped by the head, torso, and outer ears before reaching the ear canal. Used in this study to simulate spatial sound locations (0° for target, ±15° for maskers) over headphones, allowing realistic perception of spatial separation.
- Mismatch Negativity (MMN) – ERP marker of automatic detection of auditory deviations; indicates sensory memory and auditory discrimination.
- Misophonia – Condition characterized by strong negative emotional reactions (anger, disgust, distress) to specific sounds, often human-generated (e.g., chewing, sniffing) or repetitive environmental noises (e.g., pen clicking).
- N1 Component – Early negative ERP peak (~100 ms), indexing early auditory processing and change detection.
- N2 Component – ERP component associated with attention and stimulus evaluation; reduced in misophonia.
- Spatial Release from Masking (SRM) – Improvement in speech perception when target and masker sounds come from different spatial locations.
my engagement notes
Bookmarks
reading notes
misc.
- The authors employed the Mismatch Negativity (MMN) paradigm because prior misophonia research reported altered early auditory processing, particularly reduced N1 amplitudes to deviant sounds in oddball tasks. Building on this work, they chose MMN since it reflects automatic, pre-attentive detection of auditory irregularities and is closely linked to sensory memory. Using MMN allowed them to test whether misophonia involves disrupted auditory change detection and abnormal salience attribution, rather than broad deficits in hearing or cognition. (pdf)
- the authors focused on analyzing N1 peaks and latency diffs between standard and oddballs to give insight into early neural resposnes to acoustic changes and to be comparable to the results of (Schröder et al., 2014)