Properties (13)
Id bdcf76be-65c1-4bb7-9dd3-b6f1231ad72e
Year 2023
Abstract
Cssclasses
- purpleRed
Aliases
- Misophonia matters
- (Perez & Friedman, 2023)
Import Date 04-15-2026
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 Victor W. Perez, Asia Friedman,
Dv Initial Source Misophonia MOC
Dv Limitations • Analysis does not capture the full spectrum of misophonia research initiatives and debates; authors acknowledge the review is not systematic. • No primary data collected; analysis limited to prominent published studies and selected online content rather than comprehensive literature coverage. • The role of imaging technology in researchers' resistance to misophonia as a discrete entity is described as unclear.
Dv Relevance • honestly reads more like a rant by someone who doesn’t really understand neuroscience. not all that useful and I do not see myself using this in any way • makes claims that neuroimaging can not be used to validate diagnostic measures or substantiate the condition at all? seems to be from a sociology perspective. • seems to be nit-picking the technicalities about what Neuroimages actually are. also makes some chicken or the EEG arguemtns about how thins like different AIC activations may jsut be the result of the emotions rather then teh cause of it.. lol
Zotero Note Link Generated true
Checked For Zettle Notes true
•
Misophonia matters: A case study of the role of brain imaging in debates over new diagnoses
Status::
Metadata
- Item Type: #journalArticle
- Authors:: Victor W. Perez, Asia Friedman,
- Date:
- Date Added: 1687483383000
- URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9566.13679
- DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.13679
- Cite Key: perezMisophoniaMattersCase2023
- Topics: [object Object]
- Tags:: #Misophonia, #limited-utility, #Bare-bones-review-🦴, #literature-review
- PDF Attachments
Abstract
| Background/Purpose | Background- • Debates over misophonia as a discrete diagnosis versus symptom of other disorders. • Increased reliance on brain imaging to validate psychiatric diagnoses. • Imaging carries cultural authority as evidence of biological basis. • Lack of consensus on misophonia definition, etiology, and diagnostic criteria. • Broader trend of disaggregating symptoms into new diagnoses. Purpose- • Overall goal: to examine misophonia as a case study of how brain imaging interacts with social processes to construct, validate, and institutionalize new diagnostic categories. • Specific goals: (1) illustrate the technical and logical insufficiency of fMRI evidence to establish a "brain basis" for misophonia; (2) analyze the reciprocal social construction of diagnostic scales and imaging evidence; (3) theorize symptom disaggregation as a distinct mechanism of diagnostic redefinition within medicalization; (4) examine the role of lay and expert claims makers in online contexts. |
| Participants/samples | N/A |
| Measures | N/A |
| Procedures | Lit review |
| Results | Imaging limitations • Brain images are mediated, constructed, and involve multiple layers of human decision-making. • fMRI measures indirect signals (blood flow), not neural activity. • Baseline and signal interpretation are ambiguous. • Same signal may reflect different mental states. Causality issues • Observed brain differences cannot establish direction of causality. • Elevated brain activity may result from learned emotional responses. • Brain plasticity allows social experiences to shape neural patterns. Participant selection • Subjects pre-identified as misophonic prior to imaging. • Diagnostic scales and self-identification influence results. • Sampling may bias toward highly reactive individuals. Conceptual ambiguity • Core constructs (salience, emotion, attention) are socially defined. • Definitions of misophonia vary across studies. Mutual validation process • Diagnostic scales define participants. • Imaging results reinforce validity of those scales. • Reciprocal process constructs the disorder. Disaggregation of symptoms • Sound sensitivity separated from existing disorders into new diagnosis. • Imaging facilitates boundary-making between disorders. Role of claimsmaking • Researchers and advocacy groups promote misophonia as discrete entity. • Public discourse reinforces biomedical framing. |
| Discussion/Limits | Conclusion- - The authors conclude that misophonia exemplifies an undertheorised mechanism of medicalisation: the disaggregation of symptoms from established diagnoses into discrete clinical entities, enabled by the cultural authority of advanced imaging technology. - The data support that diagnostic redefinition through disaggregation constitutes a form of nosological discussion, facilitated by neuroreductionism and shared cultural belief in imaging’s capacity to reveal the true cause of suffering. - The authors conclude that diagnostic criteria for misophonia (e.g., anger, aversion, salience) and distinctions from overlapping disorders are socially defined constructs requiring consideration of social context, cross-cultural variation, and meaning. - The findings indicate that online lay communities and advocacy organisations actively reinforce biomedical narratives of misophonia as a brain disorder, potentially reducing stigma by shifting responsibility away from individuals while promoting biomedical over social or behavioural treatments. - The authors conclude that imaging technology plays a central role in maintaining the nosological boundaries of misophonia by purportedly validating inclusion scales, despite its inability to replace the social process of diagnosis. |
| Limitations:: | • Analysis does not capture the full spectrum of misophonia research initiatives and debates; authors acknowledge the review is not systematic. • No primary data collected; analysis limited to prominent published studies and selected online content rather than comprehensive literature coverage. • The role of imaging technology in researchers' resistance to misophonia as a discrete entity is described as unclear. |
| Future Directions:: | |
| Relevance:: | • honestly reads more like a rant by someone who doesn’t really understand neuroscience. not all that useful and I do not see myself using this in any way • makes claims that neuroimaging can not be used to validate diagnostic measures or substantiate the condition at all? seems to be from a sociology perspective. • seems to be nit-picking the technicalities about what Neuroimages actually are. also makes some chicken or the EEG arguemtns about how thins like different AIC activations may jsut be the result of the emotions rather then teh cause of it.. lol |
Notes
key terms and concepts
- misophonia – chronic form of heightened autonomic nervous system arousal and negative emotional reactivity to specific sounds; also referred to as Selective Sound Sensitivity Syndrome (4S), decreased sound tolerance, or sound-rage.
- contested illness – diagnoses that cannot currently be explained by medicine or have explanations and diagnostic criteria which are in dispute.
- disaggregation – the process of selectively removing individual symptoms associated with an established diagnosis and transforming them into a new discrete disorder with its own diagnostic criteria.
- neuroreduction – the reduction of all mental content to neural processes, which can have the effect of dismissing social and cultural aspects of the mind, psyche, and behavior.
- brain plasticity – the principle that the brain is not hardwired but rather constantly developing and changing in response to experience.
- black boxing – the concealment of the multiple layers of human mediation and decision-making involved in the production of brain images in scientific and popular accounts.
- diagnostic redefinition – a form of nosological discussion in which symptoms associated with established diagnoses are reclassified as stand-alone clinical entities, enabled by advanced imaging technology.
- claimsmakers – researchers, advocacy groups, and lay sufferers who actively advance particular conceptualizations of a condition and its diagnostic criteria in scientific and public arenas.
- medicalisation – the process by which variations in human experience are deemed problematic and given medical meaning, transforming human conditions into treatable disorders.
- mutual validation – the reciprocal process by which diagnostic scales validate imaging study participants' inclusion criteria, and imaging results in turn reinforce the validity of those scales.
my engagement notes
my questions
my comments
Bookmarks
reading notes
On the sociology of diagnosis and medicalisation
- The article explicitly positions itself at the intersection of the sociology of diagnosis (Jutel), sociology of imaging (Joyce, Dumit), and medicalisation theory (Conrad), arguing these must be brought together to understand contemporary diagnostic construction.
- The authors propose extending existing medicalisation frameworks, which have focused on the aggregation of symptoms into new diagnoses, to include disaggregation as a distinct and undertheorised direction of the same process.
On the social brain and neuroreduction
- Brain plasticity means that even genuine brain differences observed in misophonics could be a consequence of repeated social learning and conditioned emotional responses rather than a pre-existing neurological cause—an argument the authors use to directly undercut causal claims from imaging studies.
- The article draws on Pitts-Taylor (2016) and Abend (2017) to argue that neuroscientific studies of social phenomena require both subject-specific expertise and social scientific expertise in operationalisation, which is typically absent in misophonia imaging research.
contextual statement
In a 2024 study, Perez and Friedman examined the social construction of the misophonia diagnostic category by critically analysing prominent fMRI-based research claims, diagnostic scale development debates, and lay advocacy content, drawing on sociology of diagnosis and sociology of imaging frameworks.
summary statement
In a 2024 study, Perez and Friedman investigated how brain imaging interacts with social processes to construct and validate the diagnostic category of misophonia by conducting a critical sociological analysis of key fMRI studies (particularly Kumar et al., 2017, and Schröder et al., 2019), associated scientific commentaries, diagnostic scale development literature, and online advocacy content. They found that fMRI evidence is insufficient to establish a brain basis for misophonia due to the technical limitations of the technology, the logical impossibility of determining causal direction from pre-diagnosed samples, the mutual validation between contested diagnostic scales and imaging results, and the fundamentally social nature of the salience, emotion, and attention constructs central to misophonia's definition. From this they concluded that misophonia's emergence as a discrete clinical entity exemplifies a broader, undertheorised mechanism of medicalisation—the disaggregation of symptoms from existing diagnoses into new categories—that is enabled by the cultural authority of neuroimaging and sustained by a confluence of researcher claimsmaking, contested operationalisation, and lay advocacy, none of which is resolved by imaging data alone.