Properties (17)

Id da0e7709-a3c4-4b53-b354-2262de0c6d96

Year 2022

Abstract Individuals with misophonia, a disorder involving extreme sound sensitivity, report signiﬁcant anger, disgust, and anxiety in response to select but usually common sounds. While estimates of prevalence within certain populations such as college students have approached 20%, it is currently unknown what percentage of people experience misophonic responses to such “trigger” sounds. Furthermore, there is little understanding of the fundamental processes involved. In this study, we aimed to characterize the distribution of misophonic symptoms in a general population, as well as clarify whether the aversive emotional responses to trigger sounds are partly caused by acoustic salience of the sound itself, or by recognition of the sound. Using multi-talker babble as masking noise to decrease participants’ ability to identify sounds, we assessed how identiﬁcation of common trigger sounds related to subjective emotional responses in 300 adults who participated in an online study. Participants were asked to listen to and identify neutral, unpleasant and trigger sounds embedded in different levels of the masking noise (signal-to-noise ratios: −30, −20, −10, 0, +10 dB), and then to evaluate their subjective judgment of the sounds (pleasantness) and emotional reactions to them (anxiety, anger, and disgust). Using participants’ scores on a scale quantifying misophonia sensitivity, we selected the top and bottom 20% scorers from the distribution to form a Most-Misophonic subgroup (N = 66) and Least-Misophonic subgroup (N = 68). Both groups were better at identifying triggers than unpleasant sounds, which themselves were identiﬁed better than neutral sounds. Both groups also recognized the aversiveness of the unpleasant and trigger sounds, yet for the Most-Misophonic group, there was a greater increase in subjective ratings of negative emotions once the sounds became identiﬁable, especially for trigger sounds. These results highlight the heightened salience of trigger sounds, but furthermore suggest that learning and higher-order evaluation of sounds play an important role in misophonia.

Cssclasses

purpleRed

Aliases

(Savard et al., 2022)

Import Date 04-29-2024

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.

Quick Cites 2

In Depth Cites 1

Dissertation Source Tags

#Misophonia
signal detection
SNR
salience

Dv Initial Source My Dissertation MOC

Dv Status #status/complete

Dv Relevance • article is a good source for info on the effect of signal to noise ratios on miso responses. it is also a good source for info on the influence of cognition and context on misophonia • data gives justification behind making sure that triggers are identifiable in my Misophonia measurement/ dissertation project • talks about the idea that Misophonia is one end of a continuum of a specific sound sensitivity spectrum, with Misophonia on one end and ASMR on the other. they did not give this idea a name so i will call it the specific sound sensitivity spectrum • discuses findings relating to sex and age differences in Misophonia symptoms. • results contradict an implication from Schröder 2014 that there are diffs in ability to detect triggers for Misophonics vs controls. • has multiple results that support the top-down process in Misophonia • the authors have an interesting method for measuring subject identification of stimuli using a 15-AFC. that could be useful in either my dissertation or a future project. see fig 1 for image of the UI • describes signal modulation as a acoustic prop that grabs peoples attention.

Dv Limitations • generalizability of sample ( although better then relying solely on undergrad students) is still limited due to the nature of using an online convenience sample. ([page 13](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/4DEGN5P6?page=13&annotation=EEUQVANA)) • possible confounds from diff subjects having diff audio devices that could have impacted playback. ([page 13](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/4DEGN5P6?page=13&annotation=4FU5MMZD)) • one weakness of the MisoQuest is its low sensitivity, which increases the risks of false negatives. ([page 11](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/4DEGN5P6?page=11&annotation=TKNEFY72))

Dv Future Directions • assess the development of Misophonia symptoms over the lifespan and the prevalence of symptoms in diff age groups. ([pdf](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/4DEGN5P6?page=13&annotation=H58834GU)) • implement physiological metrics to assess sex related physiological responses differences in situations with emotion provoking sounds. look at refining questionnaires/ weighing items to address possible sex differences in symptoms ([pdf](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/4DEGN5P6?page=12&annotation=TH9C9FY4)) • future online studies should standardize listing devices used and/or implement large sampled and loosely controlled methods to compliment the rigidly controlled lab studies. • continue assessing possible distinct acoustic properties of typical triggers ([pdf](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/4DEGN5P6?page=13&annotation=ZMVKQT3W)) ([page 12](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/4DEGN5P6?page=12&annotation=VDSNCBWJ))

Checked For Zettle Notes true

Zotero Note Link Generated true

•

Specificity of Affective Responses in Misophonia Depends on Trigger Identification

Status:: #status/complete

Metadata

Item Type: #journalArticle
Authors: Marie-Anick Savard, Anastasia G. Sares, Emily B. J. Coffey, Mickael L. D. Deroche,
Date:
Date Added: 1688257356000
URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2022.879583/full
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.879583
Cite Key: savardSpecificityAffectiveResponses2022
Topics: [object Object],[object Object]
Tags: #Misophonia, #reviewed, #selected, #Signal-detection-Psychology , #role-of-context, #mental-health, #sound-sensitivity, #anxiety, #anger, #SNR, #MisoQuest, #auditory-cognition, #emotion-regulation, #my-dissertation
PDF Attachments

Article Review Table: (Savard et al., 2022)


Background/Purpose	Background- • little info exists on prevalence of Misophonia responses in the general public Purpose- • goal of characterizing the distribution of Misophonia symptoms in the general pop • determine if/the degree to which Misophonia resposnes are the result of acoustic salience of the sounds vs recognition of the sounds (page 1) • goal of characterizing the distribution f Misophonia symptoms in the general population (page 3) • goal of assessing if sounds must be identifiable in order to induce Misophonic responses. (page 3) • goal of examining the relationship between Misophonia and identification and memory (page 15) Hypothesis- • as SNR increases( it is easier to Id the target source) triggers will become more easy to ID the neutral/unpleasant sounds • the most Misophonic subjects will be best able to to detect trigger sounds at lower SNR’s • subjective ratings of aversiveness will be dependent on source identification, such that when SNR is to skewed for a correct identification , the least/most Misophonic groups will show similar subjective ratings. (page 3) • predicted higher MisoQuest scores for females compared to males (page 3)
Participants/samples	• 300 adults' recruited online from “Prolific” • inclusion criteria included: age ≥ 18; spoke English as a primary language • subdivide into most vs least Misophonic ()op/bottom 20% scores on the MisoQuest) (page 3)
Measures	• scores on the MisoQuest • self reports of stim pleasantness, resulting feelings of anger, disgust, and anxiety • 15 FCT self report of what they thought the stimulus was.
Procedures	stimuli • subset of 15 the stim from Kumar 2017, 5 triggers (all orofacial sounds) 5 unpleasant, 5 neutral. stimuli were shortened to representative 3s versions to speed up the session and avoid participant fatigue • manipulated identifiability of stimuli using multi talker babble. (page 1) • babble- multi-talker babble was selected as a masker due to it being a commonly encountered noise with greater ecological validity compared to artificial masks. babble consisted of 10 samples of differing SNR (-30,-20,-10,0,+10 dB) (page 5) • procedure • subjects pre-screened for Misophonia using the MisoQuest. they also reported the audio device they would be using in the exp and rate the quality (1-3). • completed three practice trials to familiarize selves with the subjective ratings and forced-choice source Identification tasks to be used. practice trials consisted of toddler crying, washing machine, and 3s version of an eating sound in that order. • task consisted of 75 trials alternating between trigger, unpleasant, and neutral sounds. SNR was also adjusted by embedding the target sounds in different levels of multi-talker babble. • each trial consisted of listing to a target sound, then rate the pleasantness (0-100) subjective anger disgust, and anxiety using sliders. trial concluded a 15-alternative force choice task, with different labels for the target sound, from which subjects selected what they believed the target was. all trials were completed in a single block, with the order of stim randomized within the block • session ended with open ended questioning of what subjects thought the goal of the study was, and what if anything they noticed odd about the sounds. (page 4)
Results	• first hyp was supported but the second hyp was contradicted (page 7) • results contradicts Kilic et al 2021 by failing to find a correlation between MisoQuest scores and age (i.e. no age effects) (page 12) • found that trigger sounds were better identified then unpleasant/ neutral sounds, supporting hypothesis 1. (page 13) • found that the least vs most Misophonic people did not differ in ability to detect triggers. this contradicts hyp 2, suggesting that Misophonia is not a bottom up process. this also contradicts past research suggesting differences in low level auditory processing in Misophonics ((Schröder et al., 2014)) (page 13) • on trials where subjects correctly identified triggers, the most Misophonic subjects reported the strongest resposnes. this was also true also for unpleasant sounds, but was more dramatic for triggers. tis acts as support for the top down process in Misophonia (page 14)
Discussion/Limits	Conclusion- •results suggest heightened salience of trigger sounds as well as a role of learning and higher order ( top-down) cognitive processing in the Misophonia response. (page 1) •concluded that the observed normal distribution of MisoQuest cores indicates sub-clinical people still experience Misophonia symptoms (page 11) •the author cites observations (Zhou et al., 2017) + their own observed MisoQuest score distribution to suggest that Misophonia symptoms happen to large number of people, and that having impairments from Misophonia represents being on the extreme end of of a normal distribution of Misophonia symptoms. this citation statement has not been yet (page 11) • results work against the idea of Misophonia being a bottom up issue. (page 13) • results suggest that hyper sensitivity to Misophonia triggers does not generalize to other sound sources. (page 15)
Limitations::	• generalizability of sample ( although better then relying solely on undergrad students) is still limited due to the nature of using an online convenience sample. (page 13) • possible confounds from diff subjects having diff audio devices that could have impacted playback. (page 13) • one weakness of the MisoQuest is its low sensitivity, which increases the risks of false negatives. (page 11)
Future Directions::	• assess the development of Misophonia symptoms over the lifespan and the prevalence of symptoms in diff age groups. (pdf) • implement physiological metrics to assess sex related physiological responses differences in situations with emotion provoking sounds. look at refining questionnaires/ weighing items to address possible sex differences in symptoms (pdf) • future online studies should standardize listing devices used and/or implement large sampled and loosely controlled methods to compliment the rigidly controlled lab studies. • continue assessing possible distinct acoustic properties of typical triggers (pdf) (page 12)
Relevance::	• article is a good source for info on the effect of signal to noise ratios on miso responses. it is also a good source for info on the influence of cognition and context on misophonia • data gives justification behind making sure that triggers are identifiable in my Misophonia measurement/ dissertation project • talks about the idea that Misophonia is one end of a continuum of a specific sound sensitivity spectrum, with Misophonia on one end and ASMR on the other. they did not give this idea a name so i will call it the specific sound sensitivity spectrum • discuses findings relating to sex and age differences in Misophonia symptoms. • results contradict an implication from Schröder 2014 that there are diffs in ability to detect triggers for Misophonics vs controls. • has multiple results that support the top-down process in Misophonia • the authors have an interesting method for measuring subject identification of stimuli using a 15-AFC. that could be useful in either my dissertation or a future project. see fig 1 for image of the UI • describes signal modulation as a acoustic prop that grabs peoples attention.

Notes

my engagement notes

my questions

my comments

the authors have an interesting method for measuring subject identification of stimuli using a 15-AFC. that could be useful in either my dissertation or a future project. see fig 1 for image of the UI (page 4)

Bookmarks

bookmark for procedure (page 4)
bookmark talking about the stim (page 4)
bookmark for describing the MisoQuest (page 5)
bookmark briefly talking about ideas around sex differences in Misophonia (page 12)
bookmark discussing the lack of age effects in this study and further talks about age effects in general for Misophonia (page 12)
bookmark of authors talking about Schröder 2014 in the context of Savard’s observations in this study (page 13)
Bookmark for study summary (page 14)

reading notes

author notes the question as to if Misophonia symptoms are a distinct thing or represent one exteme end on a spectrum of sound sensitivity symptoms (page 2)

past talks about potential demographic effects on Misophonia

the authors discuss some ideas about demographic effects on Misophonia

Sex differences: the authors note how most samples of Misophonics are primarily female. however this could also be because of the convenience sample of undergrad psych students. (pdf)
Age effects: the authors noted how past research has suggested greater prevalence of Misophonia in younger samples (page 2)
one acoustic property that tends to grab peoples attention is modulation. sound signals that are modulated tend to stand out from background noise, and some modulation rates are known to produce a “rough” sensation and are associated with greater perceptions of pleasantness/unpleasantness in some naturalistic sounds.
- such sounds are also thought to be processed through bottom-up mechanisms
this has some implications for misophonia., as Misophonia triggers tend to share this feature (i.e. the modulation of chewing, modulation of leg swigging (leg position?) etc.) (page 2)

image-5-x38-y486.png (A) Subjective ratings. Participants had unlimited time to rate the pleasantness of the sound (from unpleasant to pleasant) and the subjective feelings of anger, disgust, and anxiety after hearing the sound. (B) 15-alternative forced-choice task. Participants had unlimited time to click on the label corresponding to the sound that they just heard. page 5

image-9-x35-y323.png Population results (N = 300) for subjective ratings of each sound category. Shaded areas represent ±1 standard deviation from the mean fit. The aversive sounds (blue and red) show a curvilinear trend. page 9

image-10-x54-y58.png ANOVA results for emotional ratings before and after recognition threshold. page 10

talks about the idea that Misophonia is one end of a continuum of a specific sound sensitivity spectrum, with Misophonia on one end and ASMR on the other. they did not give this idea a name so i will call it the specific sound sensitivity spectrum. a limitation of the MisoQuest is that it cannot assess both ends of this possible spectrum (page 11)