Properties (15)
Id d5d24aab-df86-497b-9e58-2a607c425c6b
Year 2025
Cssclasses
- purpleRed
Aliases
- (Laag et al., 2025)
Import Date 04-30-2026
Dv Initial Source Misophonia MOC
Dv Status #status/reviewed
Dv Limitations N/A
Dv Future Directions N/A
Dv Relevance • audiological paper looking at differences in auditory brainstem responses (ABR) to pure tones in Misophonia vs controls • another instances of using non triggering stimuli. • found earlier P1 and N1 latencies and larger P1 and P2 amplitudes in the Misophonia group which the authors claim can be used as diagnostic markers for Misophonia
Zotero Note Link Generated true
Checked For Zettle Notes true
Notes Audited 2026-05-21T23:57:00
Audit Notes table bullets checked with review audit skill
•
Auditory brainstem response and cortical auditory evoked potentials in patients with misophonia
Status:: #status/reviewed
Metadata
- Item Type: #journalArticle
- Authors:: Basma Ebrahim Mahmoud Laag, Afaf Ahmed Emara, Amani M. El-Gharib, Wessam Mostafa Essawy,
- Date:
- Date Added: 1769137244000
- URL: https://link.springer.com/10.1186/s43163-025-00947-8
- DOI: 10.1186/s43163-025-00947-8
- Cite Key: laagAuditoryBrainstemResponse2025
- Topics: [object Object]
- Tags:: #Auditory, #reviewed, #Misophonia, #audiology, #ERP, #ALLR, #cortical-auditory-evoked-potentials, #Auditory-brainstem-response,
- PDF Attachments
Abstract
| Background/Purpose | Background- • Misophonia involves aversive emotional and autonomic responses to specific trigger sounds (mastication, tapping, mechanical noise). • Clinical diagnosis relies on case history and severity questionnaires (MQ, A-MISO-S). • Routine audiometric evaluation typically shows no peripheral hearing abnormalities. • Whether misophonia reflects abnormalities within the auditory processing system remains unclear. Purpose- • Investigate auditory pathway processing in misophonia using click ABR and CAEPs. |
| Participants/samples | • N = 40 adults aged 18–60 years. • Control group (I): n = 20 with normal peripheral hearing, no tinnitus, hyperacusis, or misophonia. • Study group (II): n = 20 adults with misophonia per Schroder et al. (2013) criteria. • Exclusions: general health, neurological, systemic/endocrine disease, otological complaints, noise exposure, ear surgery, ototoxic drug use. • No significant group differences in age or gender. - |
| Measures | • Pure tone audiometry (air conduction 250–8000 Hz; bone conduction 500–4000 Hz). • Speech audiometry: SRT (Arabic bi-syllabic words); WD (Arabic phonetically balanced words). • Immittancemetry: acoustic reflex, middle ear pressure, compliance. • MCL and UCL. • Amsterdam Misophonia Scale (A-Miso-S). • ABR. • CAEPs. |
| Procedures | • ABR: 1024 alternating clicks at 19.3, 50.1, and 70.1/s repetition rates; 90 dBnHL stepped down 10 dB to threshold; 0–10 ms window; 100–3000 Hz filter; T39 headphones; monaural; waves I, III, V identified. • CAEPs: tone bursts at 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 Hz; 70 dBnHL; 10 cycles rise/fall, 20-ms plateau; 1.1/s rate; -50 to 500 ms window; 50 sweeps; 1–30 Hz filter; participants reclined, non-attending. |
| Results | • No group differences in PTA thresholds, SRT, WD, or ipsilateral acoustic reflexes. • Both UCLL and MCLL were higher in patients with misophonia than the healthy controls. • ABR: no group differences in absolute latencies, inter-peak latencies, or amplitudes (waves I, III, V) across intensities or repetition rates. • CAEPs latencies: P1 and N1 occurred earlier in the misophonia group at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. • CAEPs latencies: no group differences in P2 or N2. • CAEPs amplitudes: P1 and P2 were larger in the misophonia group at all tested frequencies. • CAEPs amplitudes: no group differences in N1 or N2. • No correlation between gender and A-Miso-S severity. • No correlation between ABR latencies/amplitudes and UCL, MCL, or A-Miso-S. • Negative correlation between P1 and P2 amplitudes and UCL at 1000 and 2000 Hz; negative correlation between P1 amplitude and UCL at 1000 Hz. • No correlation between CAEPs latencies and UCL, MCL, or A-Miso-S. |
| Discussion/Limits | Conclusion- • The findings indicate higher female prevalence of misophonia, with no gender-severity relationship. • The data support intact peripheral hearing in misophonia. • The authors conclude brainstem neuronal synchronization is intact in misophonia, consistent with prior ABR work. • The findings indicate atypical cortical auditory processing reflected in earlier P1/N1 latencies and larger P1/P2 amplitudes. • The authors conclude earlier P1/N1 reflects heightened activity at peak generators and subcortical regions. • The data support normal higher-order auditory processing, given absence of P2/N2 latency differences (cognitive-dependent endogenous components). • The authors conclude larger P1/P2 amplitudes reflect hyper-responsiveness and increased neural activity at peak generators. • The findings indicate CAEPs (latencies, amplitudes) may serve diagnostic value for misophonia. |
| Limitations:: | N/A |
| Future Directions:: | N/A |
| Relevance:: | • audiological paper looking at differences in auditory brainstem responses (ABR) to pure tones in Misophonia vs controls • another instances of using non triggering stimuli. • found earlier P1 and N1 latencies and larger P1 and P2 amplitudes in the Misophonia group which the authors claim can be used as diagnostic markers for Misophonia |
Notes
key terms
- Misophonia – a chronic disorder characterized by negative emotional reactions and autonomic arousal triggered by particular sounds.
- ABR (Auditory Brainstem Response) – click-evoked electrophysiological measure of brainstem auditory pathway integrity.
- CAEPs (Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials) – tone-burst evoked cortical responses indexing P1, N1, P2, N2 components.
- MCL (Most Comfortable Loudness Level) – speech volume rated most comfortable.
- UCL (Uncomfortable Loudness Level) – speech volume rated as uncomfortable.
- A-Miso-S (Amsterdam Misophonia Scale) – 6-item severity scale adapted from Y-BOCS, scored 0 (subclinical) to 24 (extreme).
my engagement notes
my questions
my comments
Bookmarks
reading notes
Tinnitus comorbidity
- All misophonia patients reported tinnitus; relevant to UCL findings per Raj-Koziak et al. (2021).
Mixed prior literature
- Findings on UCL/MCL contradict Schroder et al. (2013), Jager et al. (2022), Siepsiak et al. (2022).
- CAEPs latency findings agree with Aryal & Prabhu (2023); CAEPs amplitude findings disagree with same.
contextual statement
In a 2025 study, Laag attempted to characterize auditory pathway processing in misophonia by comparing 20 adults with misophonia to 20 controls on PTA, MCL/UCL, A-Miso-S, click ABR (multiple repetition rates), and tone-burst CAEPs at 500–4000 Hz.
summary statement
In a 2025 study, Laag characterized auditory pathway processing in misophonia by comparing 20 misophonia patients and 20 controls on audiometric, ABR, and CAEPs measures. They found lower MCL and UCL in the misophonia group, no ABR group differences, and earlier P1/N1 latencies with larger P1/P2 amplitudes in CAEPs across 500–4000 Hz. From this they concluded that misophonia spares brainstem synchronization but reflects cortical hyper-responsiveness at early auditory peak generators, with intact higher-order (P2/N2) processing.
zettlekasten
P1-N1 latencies and P1-P2 amplitudes as diagnostic markers of Misophonia