Properties (14)

Id 3483ef09-da70-416a-bfef-cac22979af9a

Year 2025

Abstract

Cssclasses

purpleRed

Aliases

Sensory processing differences in misophonia
(Woolley et al., 2025)

Import Date 01-20-2026

Zotero Note Link Generated true

Checked For Zettle Notes true

Dv Authors Mercedes G. Woolley, Hailey E. Johnson, Samuel J.E. Knight, Emily M. Bowers, Julie M. Petersen, Karen Muñoz, Michael P. Twohig,

Dv Initial Source Misophonia MOCMisophonia

Dv Status #status/reviewed

Dv Limitations • Modest sample size and single-clinician administration of the DMI (no interrater reliability). • No ASD screening – possible undiagnosed comorbidities. • Non-auditory sensory data not collected for the control group, limiting group comparison in that domain.

Dv Future Directions • Clarify sensory processing profiles in adult misophonia across clinical subtypes. • Investigate overlap and distinctions between SOR and misophonia with better cross-group sensory measures. • Examine the role of emotion regulation and perceived control in misophonic distress.

Dv Relevance • looked at the general sensory profiles of Misophonics, finding that Misophonics have greater sensory sensitivity and avoidance. also found a high percentage of Misophonics reported sensitivity in non-auditory domains like tactile and olfaction. however, general impairments caused by these sensitives were low. • the authors still note that despite these general sensitivities, the Misophonic specific auditory sensitivity remained central to the functional impact of the condition. • provides basic info on Dunn’s model of sensory processing, which may be useful to me in general

•

Sensory processing differences in misophonia: Assessing sensory sensitivities beyond auditory triggers

Status:: #status/reviewed

Metadata

Item Type: #journalArticle
Authors:: Mercedes G. Woolley, Hailey E. Johnson, Samuel J.E. Knight, Emily M. Bowers, Julie M. Petersen, Karen Muñoz, Michael P. Twohig,
Date Added: December 4, 2025
URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022395625007290
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.11.026
Cite Key: woolleySensoryProcessingDifferences2025
Tags: #Misophonia, #sensory-over-responsiveness, #sensory-processing, #impairment
PDF Attachments

Abstract


Background/Purpose	Background- • Misophonia is traditionally studied as an auditory-specific condition but may also involve broader sensory processing differences. • Prior research shows overlap between misophonia and SOR, as well as shared features with ASD, though misophonia can occur independently of ASD. • Existing work is limited in adult populations and often focuses narrowly on auditory responses. Purpose- • Assess sensory processing differences beyond auditory triggers in adults with clinically significant misophonia. • Compare sensory processing profiles between individuals with misophonia and matched non-clinical controls. • Characterize prevalence and impact of non-auditory sensitivities (tactile, olfactory, visual, gustatory) in misophonia. • Examine correlations between misophonia severity and sensory sensitivity/avoidance traits.
Participants/samples	• Total N = 120; 60 participants with clinically significant misophonia and 60 age- and gender-matched controls. • Misophonia group: treatment-seeking adults, ≥18 years, scoring >20 on DMI and >5 on MQ severity item. • Control group: recruited separately, no measurable misophonia traits, MQ severity score <3, and no subclinical misophonia per DVMSQ.
Measures	• MQ: Assesses misophonia symptoms, emotional/behavioral responses, and severity. • AASP: Evaluates sensory processing across four quadrants based on Dunn’s model. • DMI (Sensory Elements section): Clinician-assessed sensory sensitivity across tactile, visual, olfactory, gustatory domains, including intensity and functional impairment.
Procedures	• Both groups completed the same demographic and psychometric surveys. • Misophonia group completed clinical interviews and full audiological assessments. • Control group underwent brief hearing assessment but no clinical interview. • Compensation differed ($60 for misophonia group, $30 for controls) due to procedural differences.
Results	• Group Comparisons: • Misophonia group showed significantly higher sensory sensitivity (d = 1.21) and sensory avoidance (d = 1.16). • Significantly lower sensory seeking (d = 0.86) in misophonia group. • No significant difference in low sensory registration. • Sensory Sensitivity (Misophonia group): • 80% endorsed at least one non-auditory sensitivity. • Tactile (56.7%) and olfactory (28.3%) sensitivities most common. • Impairment from non-auditory sensitivities generally low (clinical-level impairment ranged 6.7–11.7%). • Correlational Findings: • Misophonia severity (MQ) positively correlated with: Sensory avoidance (r = .32), Sensory sensitivity (r = .30), Olfactory impairment (r = .38), Gustatory intensity and impairment (r = .26 each)
Discussion/Limits	Conclusion- • Adults with misophonia show broader sensory processing differences, particularly in sensitivity and avoidance domains. • Despite broader sensory vulnerabilities, misophonia-related distress is most strongly tied to auditory stimuli, likely due to their emotional and social salience. • Findings suggest SOR may co-occur with misophonia but is not synonymous with it.
Limitations::	• Modest sample size and single-clinician administration of the DMI (no interrater reliability). • No ASD screening – possible undiagnosed comorbidities. • Non-auditory sensory data not collected for the control group, limiting group comparison in that domain.
Future Directions::	• Clarify sensory processing profiles in adult misophonia across clinical subtypes. • Investigate overlap and distinctions between SOR and misophonia with better cross-group sensory measures. • Examine the role of emotion regulation and perceived control in misophonic distress.
Relevance::	• looked at the general sensory profiles of Misophonics, finding that Misophonics have greater sensory sensitivity and avoidance. also found a high percentage of Misophonics reported sensitivity in non-auditory domains like tactile and olfaction. however, general impairments caused by these sensitives were low. • the authors still note that despite these general sensitivities, the Misophonic specific auditory sensitivity remained central to the functional impact of the condition. • provides basic info on Dunn’s model of sensory processing, which may be useful to me in general

Notes

key terms

Misophonia – A condition characterized by strong negative emotional reactions (e.g., anger, distress) to specific auditory stimuli.
Sensory Over-Responsivity (SOR) – Heightened distress in response to everyday sensory input, potentially independent of other disorders such as ASD.
Dunn’s Model of Sensory Processing – A framework positing four sensory processing patterns: Low Registration, Sensory Seeking, Sensory Sensitivity, and Sensory Avoidance, based on thresholds for sensory input and self-regulation strategies.
Low Sensory Registration – High threshold and passive response; individuals may not notice sensory stimuli.
Sensory Sensitivity – Low threshold and passive response; individuals experience discomfort or distress from sensory input.
Sensory Avoidance – Low threshold and active response; individuals attempt to avoid or minimize sensory input.
Sensory Seeking – High threshold and active response; individuals actively pursue sensory stimulation.
Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (AASP) – A self-report instrument measuring sensory processing patterns across different sensory modalities.

my engagement notes

my questions

my comments

Bookmarks

bookmark talking about Dunn’s model of sensory processing (page 2)

reading notes

Multisensory Processing Conceptualization:

Findings emphasize that misophonia extends beyond auditory processing but is uniquely impactful due to the affective and social context of sound triggers.
Misokinesia, though related, may not be fully captured in current sensory assessment tools.

Subclinical Spectrum:

Subclinical misophonia symptoms in control group also linked to higher sensory sensitivity and avoidance, indicating potential trait-level risk across a continuum.

Emotional Salience of Auditory Triggers:

Auditory sensitivity likely remains central due to reduced perceived control and interpersonal context of trigger sounds (e.g., chewing in social settings).

zettelkasten

Woolley 2025 describing the Dunn model of sensory processing

Woolley’s 2025 findings on Misophonics non-auditory sensitivities