Properties (12)

Year 2024

Abstract Abstract Background Misophonia is often referred to as a disorder that is characterized by excessive negative emotional responses, including anger and anxiety, to “trigger sounds” which are typically day‐to‐day sounds, such as those generated from people eating, chewing, and breathing. Misophonia (literally “hatred of sounds”) has commonly been understood within an auditory processing framework where sounds cause distress due to aberrant processing in the auditory and emotional systems of the brain. However, a recent proposal suggests that it is the perceived action (e.g., mouth movement in eating/chewing sounds as triggers) of the trigger person, and not the sounds per se, that drives the distress in misophonia. Since observation or listening to sounds of actions of others are known to prompt mimicry in perceivers, we hypothesized that mimicking the action of the trigger person may be prevalent in misophonia. Apart from a few case studies and anecdotal information, a relation between mimicking and misophonia has not been systematically evaluated. Method In this work, we addressed this limitation by collecting data on misophonia symptoms and mimicry behavior using online questionnaires from 676 participants. Results Analysis of these data shows that (i) more than 45% of individuals with misophonia reported mimicry, indicating its wide prevalence, (ii) the tendency to mimic varies in direct proportion to misophonia severity, (iii) compared to other human and environmental sounds, trigger sounds of eating and chewing are more likely to trigger mimicking, and (iv) the act of mimicking provides some degree of relief from distress to people with misophonia. Conclusion This study shows prevalence of mimicry and its relation to misophonia severity and trigger types. The theoretical framework of misophonia needs to incorporate the phenomenon of mimicry and its effect on management of misophonia distress.

Cssclasses

purpleRed

Aliases

Mimicry in misophonia
(Ash et al., 2024)

Import Date 10-06-2025

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 Paris A. Ash, Ester Benzaquén, Phillip E. Gander, Joel I. Berger, Sukhbinder Kumar,

Dv Limitations • Mimicry data are self-reported, potentially underestimating involuntary mimicry. • Limited range and granularity of mimicry questions. • Underrepresentation of non-orofacial triggers may have influenced generalizability.

Dv Future Directions • Use physiological (e.g., EMG) methods to detect subtle, unconscious mimicry. • Develop validated, comprehensive mimicry assessment tools. • Explore mimicry responses to broader classes of trigger sounds (e.g., non-human, environmental).

Dv Relevance • looks at the rates of self reported use of mimicry as a coping mechanism in Misophonia, finding that greater Misophonia severity as measured on the MQ was associated with greater rates of mimicry use. they also found that eating/chewing triggers were more associated with mimicry responses and that mimicry provided some relief from Misophonia symptoms. describes the concept of “spontaneous mimicry” as the automatic reproduction of of another persons motor movements, behaviors, or facial expressions without conscious intention to do so. this could be relevant to the Kumar motor model • explains the observation that Mimicry dampens Misophonia responses as the result of the act of mimicking enabling sensory prediction and restoring a sense of agency • discusses the concept of the perception-action link in the context of Misophonia • postulates that enhanced mimicry could be the result of stronger sensory-motor cortex connectivity in Misophonia

Initial Source

Misophonia MOC

Checked For Zettle Notes true

Mimicry in misophonia: A large‐scale survey of prevalence and relationship with trigger sounds

Status:: #status/reviewed

Metadata

Item Type: #journalArticle
Authors:: Paris A. Ash, Ester Benzaquén, Phillip E. Gander, Joel I. Berger, Sukhbinder Kumar,
Date:
Date Added: 1756924048000
URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.23605
DOI: 10.1002/jclp.23605
Cite Key: ashMimicryMisophoniaLargescale2024
Topics: [object Object]
Tags:: #clinical, #Diagnosis, #measures, #mimicry, #Misophonia, #Misophonia-Questionnaire, #reviewed, #social-cognition,
PDF Attachments

Abstract


Background/Purpose	Background- • Misophonia is increasingly recognized as involving both auditory and social components, not just sound sensitivity. • The dominant model ("sound-processing framework") emphasizes abnormal auditory-emotional brain processing but ignores social context and the role of actions producing the sound. • Mimicry of trigger actions is a known social behavior, but its prevalence and role in misophonia remain largely unexamined beyond anecdotal/case reports. Purpose- • To examine the prevalence of mimicry among individuals with varying misophonia severity. • To determine whether mimicry is linked to specific trigger sound types. • To assess whether mimicry modulates distress in individuals with misophonia.
Participants/samples	• N = 676 participants • Age: 18–81 years (Mean = 38.39, SD = 16.10) • Gender: 74.7% female, 24.6% male, 0.7% other • Recruited from misophonia support groups and a neuroscience volunteer registry. • Included individuals with a range of misophonia severity (including no symptoms).
Measures	• Misophonia Questionnaire (MQ): • Symptom Scale (sensitivity to specific sounds) • Emotions Scale (emotional/behavioral responses) • Severity Scale (rated 0–15, with anchors for interpretation) • Mimicry Assessment: 5 custom lab-developed questions (e.g., incidence, control, distress relief), mostly Likert-scale.
Procedures	• Online questionnaires delivered via Google Forms. • Participants provided consent, completed 64 questions (~20 min), and could enter a prize draw. • Data anonymized and ethics approved by Newcastle University.
Results	• Prevalence of Mimicry: • 46.7% of all participants reported mimicking trigger sounds/actions. • Mimicry prevalence increased with misophonia severity (e.g., 8% in “no misophonia,” ~57% in “clinical/severe”). • Sound Category Associations: • Eating sounds were the most significant predictors of mimicry (OR = 1.341, p = .001). • Consonant/vowel sounds also predicted mimicry (OR = 1.154, p = .046). • Relief and Control: • ~80% reported that mimicry was voluntary. • ~68% reported relief from distress through mimicry. • ~60% felt mimicry gave them a sense of control. • Factor Analysis: • Mimicry and orofacial sounds (e.g., eating, nasal, throat) loaded together on one factor. • Non-orofacial/environmental sounds did not show strong associations
Discussion/Limits	Conclusion- • Mimicry is common in misophonia, increases with symptom severity, and is especially tied to orofacial trigger sounds. • Mimicry may serve as a coping mechanism to reduce distress and restore self-control. • Findings support a more socially integrated model of misophonia involving sensory-motor processes
Limitations::	• Mimicry data are self-reported, potentially underestimating involuntary mimicry. • Limited range and granularity of mimicry questions. • Underrepresentation of non-orofacial triggers may have influenced generalizability.
Future Directions::	• Use physiological (e.g., EMG) methods to detect subtle, unconscious mimicry. • Develop validated, comprehensive mimicry assessment tools. • Explore mimicry responses to broader classes of trigger sounds (e.g., non-human, environmental).
Relevance::	• looks at the rates of self reported use of mimicry as a coping mechanism in Misophonia, finding that greater Misophonia severity as measured on the MQ was associated with greater rates of mimicry use. they also found that eating/chewing triggers were more associated with mimicry responses and that mimicry provided some relief from Misophonia symptoms. • describes the concept of “spontaneous mimicry” as the automatic reproduction of of another persons motor movements, behaviors, or facial expressions without conscious intention to do so. this could be relevant to the Kumar motor model • explains the observation that Mimicry dampens Misophonia responses as the result of the act of mimicking enabling sensory prediction and restoring a sense of agency • discusses the concept of the perception-action link in the context of Misophonia • postulates that enhanced mimicry could be the result of stronger sensory-motor cortex connectivity in Misophonia

Notes

key terms and concepts

Misophonia – A condition marked by extreme negative emotional responses (anger, disgust, anxiety) to specific trigger sounds (e.g., chewing, breathing).
Trigger Sounds – Everyday human-produced sounds (chewing, eating, nasal sounds) that provoke misophonic reactions.
Mimicry – The act of imitating or replicating the action or sound of the trigger person, observed both as spontaneous and intentional behavior.
Orofacial Sounds – Sounds resulting from movements of the mouth and face (e.g., chewing, throat sounds).
Perception-Action Link – A theoretical model where perceiving an action leads to internal motor activation and potential imitation.

my engagement notes

my questions

my comments

was a lot more insightful then I thought it was going to be.. got to remember to always check the discussion because I almost missed all the juicier stuff. (page 7)

Bookmarks

bookmark for talking about mimicry in general (page 8)
bookmark for linking mimicry to misophonia (page 9)
bookmark talking about why mimicry might help misophonia (page 9)
bookmark talking about the perception-action link (page 10)

Neural Basis

Prior fMRI work shows stronger connectivity between sensory and orofacial motor areas in misophonia, supporting perception-action link hypotheses.

Theoretical Contributions

Suggests misophonia may reflect disrupted modulation of spontaneous mimicry.
Highlights mimicry as a potentially adaptive or compensatory behavior.

reading notes

image-6-x35-y459.png FIGURE 2 (a) Univariate logistic regression showing the probability to mimic in relation to the log‐transformed MQ severity score. Response counts for “yes” (1) and “no” (0) are shown as open circles. (b) Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence limits for different trigger sound categories page 6

image-6-x36-y237.png TABLE 1 Multivariable logistic regression, predicting the likelihood of mimicry occurrence as a function of misophonia sensitivity to different sound categories. page 6