![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does anyone know if I actually have this or if I just dont like loud sounds? Usually when I play my video games, I turn the sound off, because every now and then theres some moderately quiet boom or gunfire or something and it scares the something-I-probably-shouldn't-say-here out of me, and I don't like loud noises in general, even when the sound isn't coming from a speaker. Do I have this? .. VFD642 (signed later)
Misophonia is a hearing issue, soft sound sensitivity is a brain issue, more like ADHD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.105.0 ( talk) 04:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Misophonia and Selective Sound Sensitivity are the same disorder. Marsha Johnson identified this disorder in 1997 and called it Selective Sound Sensitivity Syndrome (4S). [1] and Jastreboff and Jastreboff coined the term misophonia. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.219.90 ( talk) 16:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Misophonia is being found to be a common condition, so it seems the current wiki article needs amending (I don't know how to do that, nor do I have the time). Here's an article on research saying as much: "The present study explored the prevalence and descriptive characteristics of hyperacusis, defined as unusual intolerance of ordinary environmental sounds..." that definition is so broad as to encompass misophonia-positive respondents. Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14992020209056075
And from my personal, acutely misophonic, experience (as its defined by the wiki article), I know many people who, when I have shared about my experiences with misophonia, have responded... "Really? I thought I was the only one!" Or, "I know someone who deals with that exact same thing!" My husband, too, is totally freaky about the sound of scraping (especially fingernails) on fabric, among other triggers. From my informal research, I have noticed, too, a common correlation with musicianship and misophonia (as is noted in hyperacusis).
Dana 98.201.154.195 ( talk) 16:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The article referred to above is about hyperacusis, not misophonia. There was a recent study done at the University of South Florida in which the 483 participants (undergraduate psychology students, mostly women) had a misophonia prevalence rate of 20%. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.219.90 ( talk) 17:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The article referenced above has been misquoted and misinterpreted. It said 20% had misophonia-like symptoms, not misophonia. The article For example,a person who likes to keep stacks of paper aligned may have an OCD-like characteristic, yet does not by definition have OCD.
Bear in mind that if one out of five people had misophonia (a 20 % rate of occurrence), its prevalence would be greater than breast cancer. The CDC and NIH would have been heard about misophonia a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.246.248 ( talk) 22:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Aversion Therapy seems to be perfectly suited as a treatment for this particular disorder. I wonder if it has been tested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhoadess ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Aversion therapy has generally been reported to cause an increase in the severity of misophonia symptoms. There was an alternate method of treatment, which used a greatly reduced trigger stimulus presented at the 2014 Misophonia Association conference. This method of treatment was called the Neural Repatterning Treatment. Results of one case was presented showing a large reduction of the severity of misophonia over the course of a 2 month treatment. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.219.90 ( talk) 17:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
there are people who have the opposite of this. just google ASMR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.150.220 ( talk) 20:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Please, if you are going to add material to this article, first read Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sources policies. I've had to remove much of the content of this article because it was not cited to sources that meet Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria -- there seems to be increasing use of the term in the medical literature, (see this Google search, for example) please cite that instead of material blogs, support groups, web forums, etc. -- The Anome ( talk) 07:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted references to a website because it was a health service provider speculating about the cause of misophonia (i.e. citing a reference that makes no mention of misophonia) and effectively advertising their own treatment options on a commercial basis. As far as I can see, Wikipedia should not be used to advertise someone's commercial or professional services, nor to assert theories of causality without support from relevant research literature (Skinner in 1938 is not relevant to misophonia, unless you can find a description of *symptoms* like misophonia in his works). Ramachandran (2012) has presented preliminary findings in support of his hypothesis that misophonia is an autonomic disorder with an additional cognitive factor: he regards misophonia as a form of sound-emotion synesthesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.98.189 ( talk) 06:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I am writing just to let you monitor this article. I do not know Wikipedians here. (I'm French).
I was looking for information and I came across a source of this article.ref No. 10 ·
" Dozier, T.H. (2015). Counterconditioning treatment for misophonia. Clinical Case Studies, first published on January 20, 2015 as doi:10.1177/1534650114566924"
I do not know if Tom Dozier is neutral or not, he published under his nickname. but his email (written in the reference document) refers to the company he seems to advertising
.....@misophoniatreatment.com (I did not put the beginning of the email)
in the paper it is written:
"The author is a private practitioner, with a “doing business as” entity of the Misophonia Treatment Institute. He is the developer of the Misophonia Trigger Tamer and the Visual Trigger Tamer apps, which are patent pending"
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Misophonia&diff=646539201&oldid=646536297
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Misophonia&diff=646535517&oldid=645950083
I do not expect an answer, I'm just passing through. Vatadoshu ( talk) 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC) User:Vatadoshu
I will notify the bear know I wrote about him. @ Tomdozier:.. Vatadoshu ( talk) 18:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I notice that Tom Dozier, a private practitioner, has again included his treatment plan in the body of the page and has included his private practice website as a resource. This is against all Wiki. policy and is highly unethical. It has been removed; however, he continues to re-post his treatment plans and his practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.246.248 ( talk) 23:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
edit request declined for more discussion in this dif by user:Smalljim, a patrolling admin. Jytdog ( talk) 02:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
As currently written, this article does not consider the view that misophonia is a conditioned reflex phenomenon. This view is supported journal articles Jastreboff & Jastreboff, 2014, "Treatments for Decreased Sound Tolerance" and Dozier 2015, "Etiology, Composition, developmetn and maintenance of misophonia."
The article includes the view of 2 sources which are based on the theory that misophonia is a neurological condition based on defective brain structures (Agre Moller and Judeth Krauthammer). Both of these sources postulate the cause of misophonia. The view that misophonia needs to be added to provide balance on this topic.
I recommend adding information that includes the findings/views of Jastreboff & Jastreboff, 2014, "Treatments for Decreased Sound Tolerance" and Dozier 2015, "Etiology, Composition, developmetn and maintenance of misophonia."
The following is my suggested addition to the article, which could be included after paragraph 3 which postulates that misophonia is caused by abnormal brain function.
An alternate view, by two misophonia treatment providers, is that misophonia is a Pavlovian conditioned reflex.
[5]
[6] This view is based in part on observations of the responses of patients to treatments which exhibit active extinction and counterconditioning, which are two Pavlovian reflex processes. Another Pavlovian reflex process called "spontaneous recovery" has also been reported by patients during treatment.
[7]
The traditional view of misophonia, as an emotional reflex response to the trigger stimulus, is shown in Figure 1. As shown, the emotional response is directly elicited (involuntary response) by the trigger stimulus. An alternate model has been proposed in which misophonia is actually a physical (muscle) reflex elicited by the trigger stimulus, and the emotional response characteristic of misophonia is elicited by the physical jerk of the muscle in the body (see Figure 2). [7]
It was reported that over 95% of patients identified a physical (muscle) reflex directly elicited by the trigger, when they were tested in a clinical setting. [7] The reflexes are diverse. Patients have reported muscle contractions of shoulders, neck, whole arm, upper arm, only the left upper arm, legs (in many variations), toes, abdomen, chest, jaw, hands open, hands making a fist, face, squinting, gasping and more. Other patients reported internal reflexes including stomach constriction, nausea, intestine constriction, esophagus constriction, sexual arousal, urge to urinate, and unidentified movement sensations in the chest cavity. [7]
References
-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdozier ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
As someone who suffers from Misophonia I just wanted to say, that I think it is so important to include his work into the article. It is seriously the only treatment that I think could work and that Misophonia is a conditioned is a fact (at least from my point of view). His methods and the idea that Misophonia is a conditioned reflex should at least be mentioned. His work was also published in peer reviewed journals. So I don't see the problem. Earlyspatz Talk 22:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I know from experience that intentionally distracting noises like repeated clicking of pens or jingling of change is use for harassment. The human mind can keep track of at most 7 things at one time, by making noises around a person it cuts down on their ability to concentrate at work or school. The intention is to get them to emotionally meltdown and claim harassment. To which delusional and other psych labels can then be applied to the victim. This type of harassment work when an individual has no work or school friends present to contest this ill treatment. The jingling of change had its roots in "if you believe in fairies ring a bell" from Disney's Peter Pan, and is anti-transgender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.67.252 ( talk) 02:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Last I checked misophonia is a pretty common thing for people on the autism spectrum. I should know as I'm autistic and misophonic, and I've heard of other individuals wearing hearing protection day to day to prevent them from melting down. I also used to wear earmuffs to keep noise out as a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:f806:c900:b174:90b9:2f06:bd98 ( talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel there is a problem with the following citations, as they do not seem to be academic (yet are making sweeping statements about what the disorder is or may be).
Citing a "life coach" not a doctor. Her book and website seem to be directly selling her "life counseling" services. When I looked her book "Sound Rage" up on WorldCat her book is not shown - which leads me to wonder if it is even a peer-reviewed source, let alone medically legitimate enough to be citing "evidence" or "theories" in a way that may lead sufferers astray and to assume that there is enough research on the disorder.
Source 9 (a and b) states that "A 2013 review of neurological studies and fMRI studies of the brain as it relates to the disorder[9] postulated that abnormal or dysfunctional assessment of neural signals occurs in the anterior cingulate cortex and insular cortex" Judith T. Krauthamer (2013). Sound-Rage. A Primer of the Neurobiology and Psychology of a Little Known Anger Disorder. Chalcedony Press, 210 pgs.
Whether or not this is or is not true cannot be definitive as the source used is not an academic source, and is a personal book, written by a "life coach" - please see http://www.sound-rage.com/judith-t.-krauthamer.html ; though Ms. Krauthamer does have an undergraduate and graduate degree - she does not have a PhD (or undergrad, graduate respectively) in neuroscience, psychology, or any other related fields. As well, the source is not academic and therefore cannot be peer-reviewed or backed up by notable researchers or academic experts.
The second source from Ms. Krauthamer, I am not entirely sure if it is good/bad - I believe this should be reviewed as well. Since she is NOT a doctor, nor an official researcher, I believe it may be a sweeping assumption (yet again) to claim "People who have misophonia are most commonly angered by specific sounds, such as lip-smacking, slurping, throat-clearing, nail-clipping, chewing, drinking, tooth-brushing, breathing, sniffing, talking, sneezing, yawning, walking, gum-chewing or popping, laughing, snoring, swallowing, gulping, burping, clicking dentures, typing, coughing, humming, whistling, singing, certain consonants, or repetitive sounds.[16][17]
Perhaps minor amendments such as "may most commonly be" or other less definitive language.
Krauthamer, Judith T. (April 2014) Descriptive Statistics of Misophonia.Retrieved online.
Upon reviewing the sources on the page, I found it quite odd that one statement (which is led by a comment about there being no clinical evidence) had three citations, all from separate articles by the same individual, Tom Dozier.
"Some misophonic individuals responded favorably to treatment protocols that included active extinction or counterconditioning, which are both conditioning processes that allow a conditioned reflex to decay.[8][13][14][15]"
Sources listed :
Dozier, T. H. (2015). "Treating the initial physical reflex of misophonia with the neural repatterning technique: A counterconditioning procedure". Psychological Thought 8: 189–210
Dozier T. H. (2015). Psychological Thought
Dozier T. H. (2015). "Counter-conditioning treatment for misophonia". Clinical Case Studies 14: 374–387.
Upon reading the talk page I have discovered that this individual has repeatedly spammed the page in the past and has been trying to sell treatments for the disorder. He is a business entity (as previously mentioned) and does not seem to have any doctoral background.
Ethically, I believe it is unwise to advertise "counter conditioning" at this time as there is no evidence as to whether or not it can help, and especially, no medical/clinical data and research that shows it is safe. Since the disorder is so unknown, sufferers may feel the need to try anything that "may help" and it is dangerous to lead them to a source that has been blatantly advertising and has not gone through the proper channels to test treatments. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sillyrob (
talk •
contribs)
11:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, due to yet more recent conflicted editing on this article, I went through and recorded all the conflicted editing in the headers above. Folks, please do not abuse Wikipedia to get your ideas into the public sphere. That is not what Wikipedia is for.
I went through the sourcing in the article, and evaluated the sources per WP:MEDRS - almost none of them were OK. I went and found the most recent reviews on pubmed (the box at the very top of this talk page, has a link you can use to find recent reviews in pubmed) and there were only about 5 there. One of the sources already in the article that was OK (the only one I think) was from one of the issues of the 2014 edition of the journal, Seminars in Hearing. That journal is not pubmed or medline indexed (one of the criteria we use to judge journal quality) but it is indexed in SCOPUS so it is OK. I was very happy to find the Duddy article in the same issue, because it is is well done and careful review (not to mention that Duddy doesn't appear to have come to Wikipedia to advocate her views). The most recent review by Cavannah was also great (and is available for free - even better). So I read the good sources I found, and rebuilt the article. I also re-ordered it per WP:MEDMOS
Going forward, please abide by the COI guideline and do not violate WP:SELFCITE. If anybody with an academic conflict wants to propose using your own source, please propose it here for other editors to discuss. Please. I did leave various papers/books by various people who have edited in a conflicted way in the "Further reading" section. I don't usually do that, but am trying to assuage. None of those sources meet MEDRS so please do not try to build content from them. OK, that's all. Jytdog ( talk) 07:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Jtydog.
Thanks for everything you've done. Please understand that my only interest here is to have quality info on this page so that people are not misinformed. Please reconsider the "alternative names" sound-rage and decreased sound tolerance. Decreased Sound Tolerance subsumes misophonia according the the Jastreboff's but it not a "name" for the disorder. This is only going to confuse people. Sound-rage was termed by someone who wrote a self-published book about misophonia and the title includes the term "anger-disorder". There is no research to support that misophonia should be classified as an "anger" or "rage" disorder. This is not only confusing to people. It is also harmful. The Jastreboff's coined the name Misophonia, and then Selective Sound Sensitivity was suggested by an respected audiologist who has been very involved in treating the disorder. In addition, prior to the Jastreboff's terming the disorder, Occupational Therapists were calling what seems to be identical symptoms "auditory over-responsivity" under the umbrella terms, Sensory Processing Disorder (which as I am sure you know) has a large body of peer-reviewed literature. The names are confusing enough to people as it is. Please consider revising.
Also, I think it is important to note that while a reference is made to Misophonia not being in the DSM-IV, we are now using the DSM-5 (which is written without the Roman numeral). Again, these kinds of issues confuse people.
Finally, while the Moller site is a good one, the idea that misophonia starts with "close relatives and pets" is simply not true. I believe when he wrote that, there was less known about the disorder. I have been following every article that informs misophonia (as well as basic science, and potential comorbid disorders) for almost 20 years and I can assure you there is not one study that supports this problem beginning with pets. In addition, research has not yet revealed whether the aversion to specific auditory stimuli starts in childhood, adulthood, adolescence, etc. and certainly does not indicate via rigorous research that it starts with people to whom the sufferer is close. That is anecdotal.
Finally, I would appreciate it if you remove me from your list of COI. I made ONE attempt at editing the page having absolutely no understanding of how wiki works (and I remember you were helpful in regard to that situation). I have no desire to edit the page and would prefer to do so through you or another experienced editor. As you may recall, I am not skilled in the wiki platform and unfortunately I cannot spare the time it would take me to become proficient. However, I am a respectable psychologist, who has done a great deal of advocacy for SPD and Misophonia and it demeans my character to be on a list with people who clearly were using wiki to promote their self-interest. I am not promoting anything but the truth, and that should be obvious.
Again I appreciate everything you have done and I will continue to send any updates I feel the Misophonia page should have through you. However, it is not right to have me on "a list" of people who have been banned for spamming and using wiki at a platform to promote themselves to try to sell merchandise or services. I have done nothing of the kind and certainly don't plan to. My unfortunate naivety and frustration which occurred back in June was resolved with Dr. Meis, although again I never came back to the page to edit after that because it was too upsetting to me.
Thank you for your great effort here.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Jo Brout — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjobrout ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I believe the major concern here is:
Diane F. Duddy1, Kristi A.M. Oeding1 1Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri"
These sweeping comments about the disorder are very distasteful, and by a doctor that clearly has no actual background in Misophonia. Please understand how stating we may be "suicidal" or triggered by pets can be quite alarming - especially for new sufferers. I would be happy to research the author and send you background, so that you could determine whether or not it is truly a valuable source - I am advising you, that it is not. As well, I do not work FOR, Jennifer, (and it is a female pronoun, please). I work for myself.
Imperceptions ( talk) 14:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the following sections be added, at your discretion - obviously they should not be in body, as they are not academic, but I do believe that since Misophonia is so rare, it should perhaps be added, in its own column :
"Amygdala Modulation - Why Fingernails On Blackboards Make Us Crazy."
Joyce Cohen NY Times (I believe this is cited elsewhere on page too)
Thank you. Imperceptions ( talk) 03:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC) - Sorry, I didn't realize putting heading would separate it into 3 sections on here! Imperceptions ( talk) 03:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I am sending you some statements, of which may benefit the Misophonia page.
I do not have any conflict of interest with the following article, nor its writers.
These are direct statements from the article, and I have not re-written them, as I do not want to suggest anything specifically - however, this paper may be a great resource for the page and I have highlighted the parts that I believe are beneficial - but editors may check on their own, as the article is linked:
-Misophonia is a relatively unexplored chronic condition in which a person experiences autonomic arousal (analogous to an involuntary “fight-or-flight” response) to certain innocuous or repetitive sounds such as chewing, pen clicking, and lip smacking.
-Results were consistent with early reports of the phenomenon, such as the critical characteristic of misophonia being a disproportionately aversive reaction is in response to common sounds in everyday life.
-Through conducting interviews, we also identified other interesting aspects of misophonia that were not previously apparent. In particular, subjects reported that misophonia can be modulated by social expectations as well as situational context, indicating that the condition may be more complicated than merely an aversive response to the purely physical properties of sounds.
-[O]ur qualitative results are in line with all of the diagnostic criteria proposed by Schröder et al. (2013) which, shortly summarized are: (A) aversive and angry feelings evoked by particular sounds, (B) rare potentially aggressive outbursts, (C) recognition by the misophonic individual that his/her behavior is excessive, (D) avoidance behavior, (E) distress and interference in daily life, and lastly, (F) the lack of another condition to account for all symptoms.
Link: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00296/full
Citation: Edelstein, Miren, David Brang, Romke Rouw, and Vilayanur S. Ramachandran. "Misophonia: Physiological Investigations and Case Descriptions." Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 7 (2013). Print.
Imperceptions ( talk) 12:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to utilize the Cavanna lit review as an updated source that reflects the current findings regarding misophonia, rather than the Moller source. I know the Moller source is a tertiary source and therefore preferable. However, it is outdated compared to the Cavanna (2015) review, which according to WP:MEDRS is also highly acceptable. Jtydog you might note that Moller also compares misophonia to "exploding head syndrome" which is something I think is also on your Pages to fixed" in the wikimed community. No offense to him, whatsoever, it just appears that he is proving an opinion that is not at all within the scope of any of the other research, and this is true of the "pet" reference as well. Thanks! Drjobrout ( talk) 00:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Bruxner, G (2016), "'Mastication rage': a review of misophonia - an under-recognised symptom of psychiatric relevance?", Australasian Psychiatry: Bulletin Of Royal Australian And New Zealand College Of Psychiatrists, 24 (2): 195–197, I understand that there are few sources, and even fewer secondary sources on the disorder, however... this citation has been used quite a few times throughout the article. Currently there are 10 citations attributed to this one source. I am wondering if any one has any thoughts on this. What are the general rules for project medicine and using sources all over an article? AbsenceOfSound ( talk) 04:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I am wondering if the "External Links" should include a link that has been sourced and listed in the text. Is this redundant? Quiet Please has been mentioned heavily, and has been sourced several times. What are the usual policies for external links? Are they usually listed as other sources as well? In particular, I'm asking you, @SageRad after reviewing the Recent Edits. Samara-x ( talk) 22:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think that it's extremely useful for readers to see that there is a film about this condition. I think that's a useful external link. I would support adding the external link if it is not mentioned in the article itself. SageRad ( talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This statement, "It may be a form of sound–emotion synesthesia, and has parallels with some anxiety disorders" currently appears under the "Classification" heading. Since it is speculation I am wondering if it would be better off reworded and added to "Research Directions"? Perhaps something like this:
It has been suggested that the disorder----"may be a form of sound–emotion synesthesia, and has parallels with some anxiety disorders"
Any thoughts? @Ozzie10aaaa @SageRad Samara-x ( talk) 03:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The article states "As of 2014 there was no evidence-based research available on misophonia."
I've found this paper reporting on some research. It's not extensive and it's not a review article, but it's something. I wanted to note this, and i'll add it if i can get to it, if nobody adds it first. SageRad ( talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
And, a good recent source here that could be integrated into the article. SageRad ( talk) 01:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The pathophysiology of the anomalous physiological/autonomic effects in the context of misophonia has recently been investigated: a study by Edelstein et al showed increased autonomic responses to auditory (but not visual) stimuli in six subjects with misophonia, compared to typically developed controls.7 Albeit in a small cohort, findings from this study using skin conductance responses provided an objective corroboration to subjective reports that specific sounds evoke intense emotional and physical reactions.
I unwatched this for a while. I checked it over and sure enough a bunch of promotional/advocacy editing has crept back in. I cleaned it up and am watching this again. Content about the putative condition must be sourced per WP:MEDRS. Research should be sourced to secondary sources per WP:MEDRS[, WP:SCIRS, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. We need to be very careful to source non-biomedical information to high quality reliable sources. If content is sourced only to primary sources, blogs and editorials that is a sign that things have gone off the rails.
As is evident to any independent editor who reviews this Talk page and its archives as well as the article's history, from time to time this article has been skewed by advocacy editing favoring one or more "teams" involved in misophonia treatment and research and criticizing other teams.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is not a vehicle for advocacy for the condition nor for any teams working on it, per the policy, WP:SOAPBOX. Jytdog ( talk) 17:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Number of edits from
[2] to
[3] in 51 minutes: 27. All of them with a similar sort of goal of removing material or making it seem that misphonia is not an actual thing. Edits like
this one with edit summary :remove statement that "misophonia is X". not clear that this exists and we cannot treat it as though it does, at this time" seem to be pushing a cause to make the article absolutely not state that misophonia is a thing that exists. It seems Jytdog's mission is to make sure that the article absolutely will not speak of misophonia because he does not think it is known to exist. I say that is wrong according to reliable sources and is not neutral in point of view. We have a fundamental conflict of perspectives and goals here. I think
this version from before the rapid editing by Jytdog is a better than the current version, more useful for a reader, and more neutral. I think the article has suffered a sterilization.
I think we need a good, solid meta-discussion with all cards on the table. Jytdog, what is your goal for the article? How do you want to see the topic treated? Who are you accusing of "advocacy editing" or any other improper motives? Please be specific and do not put out general accusations without objects to be hanging in the air over this discussion. What problems do you see? Do you think there are people with an improper agenda trying to make it "seem" like misophonia is a real condition and can be written about in Wikivoice as such, using reliable sources? If so then state that outright. No more innuendo please.
SageRad (
talk)
13:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"Misophonia is characterized by a negative reaction to a sound with a specific pattern and meaning to a given individual. In this paper, we review the clinical features of this relatively common yet underinvestigated condition, with focus on co-occurring neurodevelopmental disorders."for instance. Can we agree that the article could say "misophonia is..." and state something stated in a review article? That seems pretty basic WP:V to me, supported by the first sentence of an abstract of a review article cited in the article itself. SageRad ( talk) 21:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I came across some information regarding the terms condition and disorder that might be helpful in editing this article.
In short, what distinguishes condition, disease, and disorder from one another would seem to be their relative emphases on functional change, structural change, presence of signs and symptoms, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the gravity a writer wishes to convey:
• Condition simply indicates a state of health, whether well or ill; a condition conferring illness might be further classified as a disease or a disorder—however, condition might be used in place of disease or disorder when a value-neutral term is desired.
• Disease denotes a condition characterized by functional impairment, structural change, and the presence of specific signs and symptoms. As an aside, Dorland’s equates the terms illness and sickness with disease; while these are often used to indicate the state or experience of disease, they are also sometimes used as value-neutral alternatives for disease.
• Disorder, in contrast, denotes a condition characterized by functional impairment without structural change and, while certain disorders or categories of disorders might be accompanied by specific signs and symptoms, their presence is not required for a condition to be termed a disorder. Like condition, disorder is sometimes used as a value-neutral term in place of disease.
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I made a couple of edits which were promptly reverted here.
I invite all editors to discuss the topic of this article and how it should be represented in Wikipedia.
Looks like we'll have to edit the article body to correct the error that have accumulated, before editing the lead to be more accurate.
Recent review articles that fully with with WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements for biomedical claims state that misophonia is a condition. Therefore, the opening sentence should be a simple definition of what the thing is.
The tone of the article, and the lead, should not be one of discrediting or disbelief. The article should follow the available reliable sources.
We must also distinguish between biomedical claims (about the existence of misophonia as a condition, symptomology, etiology, and effectiveness of treatments) versus claims that are not biomedical in nature (such as it not being included yet in the DSM, and proposed treatments or strategies of coping -- as long as it is not claiming effectiveness about those treatments -- and coping strategies reported by people in popular press articles). The fact that WP:MEDRS is required for biomedical claims does not mean that WP:MEDRS is a requirement for every single source in an article that also contains biomedical claims.
So, let us discuss and move forward. Let us be open and honest and generous in how we speak with one another, and not tendentious or stubborn. Let us be honest with the goal of writing a good article that follows reliable sources. SageRad ( talk) 12:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It is hoped that by combining qualitative and quantitative data from large populations, it will become possible to fully elucidate the hidden nature of this intrusive condition and alleviate the distress that it can cause.
My edit has been reverted by CFCF. I invite you to talk here on the talk page. Obviously there is disagreement about content, and the right way to handle this is to discuss it here, in good faith, with a generous spirit, with the goal of making a good article by consensus if possible. Please discuss. Simply reverting is not good practice. Thanks in advance. SageRad ( talk) 16:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
As per good practice described by Template:POV, i added a tag to indicate that NPOV of this article is disputed, as it is under discussion here actively and there seems to be editing without due discussion occurring. As per Template:POV, do not remove this until there is consensus that the article is in a good NPOV state. The issue as i see it is that the article should simply define misophonia in the first sentence as a condition as described by recent WP:MEDRS sources. Not doing so strikes me as not being neutral point of view in light of the sources on the subject. SageRad ( talk) 16:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Another element of the NPOV issue is that the lede says "Proponents suggest..." followed by a statement that is stated in reliable sources without such attribution, and therefore the "Proponents suggest..." part of that sentence evokes a POV of disbelief / distancing / discrediting through unnecessary attribution. SageRad ( talk) 16:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Misophonia is characterized by a negative reaction to a sound with a specific pattern and meaning to a given individual. In this paper, we review the clinical features of this relatively common yet underinvestigated condition, with focus on co-occurring neurodevelopmental disorders.
Misophonia, literally "hatred of sound," was proposed in 2000 as a disorder in which negative emotions, thoughts, and physical reactions are triggered by specific sounds.
Removal of the POV tag for the second time by another editor is inappropriate. That editor has been pinged and has failed to discuss yet. SageRad ( talk) 18:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I read this again, and still I find you're engaging in SYN or OR, and incorrectly at that. Even if sometimes or often confined with other conditions, it is being called a condition in its own right by reliable sources. And, other reading on the condition reveals similar treatment. My rather strong reckoning is that it's quite verifiable to call it a condition, and in fact is the right thing to do if following reliable sources. SageRad ( talk) 18:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
By the way, why don't you respond to my comment on your misreading of the article that you cited on nosology? That it allows for tentatively idiopathic conditions to be called conditions? Let's have some closure of dialog, some acknowledgment, some honest treatment of the matter. SageRad ( talk) 19:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem lies in that you are requiring the word "condition" to refer to a disease with known aetiology/phenomenology, whereas I don't think that is the exclusive definition of the word even per the nosology article that you cited above. SageRad ( talk) 19:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Bob K31416 you said here and somewhere in the morass of JImbo's talk page that you think there is some misunderstanding that you attempted to correct in this dif and this dif.
The key dispute between SageRad and me was that SageRad believes that MEDRS sources say that misophonia is actually a condition, and in my view the MEDRS sources make it clear that it is has been proposed as one, but not accepted.
Yes there was some confusion in the discussion above (some of it stemming from an inaccurate description by me, of what the content currently said at one point), but it was not over "disorder" vs "condition". You have misunderstood the dispute. Jytdog ( talk) 22:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, Presently the third sentence in the article is, "Misophonia has no classification as an auditory, neurological, or psychiatric condition, there are no standard diagnostic criteria, it is not recognized in the DSM-IV or the ICD-10, and there is little research on its prevalence or treatment." In this sentence, should "condition" be changed to "disorder"? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 00:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see from your response why you prefer in that sentence "condition" over "disorder".I Jytdog ( talk) 01:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
} Irrational? I'm going to bed. Roxy the dog. bark 01:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
FYI Jytdog, In the following I highlighted in green a couple of items for your consideration.
You wrote:
[6]
is a condition proposed in 2000' honors all the sources."
And you also wrote: [7]
is a condition that was proposed in 2000in which ...' "
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 22:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not very good at editing medical articles, so not sure if this BBC news report contains anything of interest? JezGrove ( talk) 09:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Σοφία Κουτσουβέλη in this set of diffs you introduced content about misophonia based on the following refs;
None of those refs are OK for supporting WP:Biomedical information per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog ( talk) 16:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
There were some good edits in the diff. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. 108.8.202.134 ( talk) 12:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Ezdelt please do read about the kinds of sources we use for content about health in the note on your talk page at User_talk:Ezdelt#References. We don't use primary sources and press releases touting them. The content you added here and here is not OK because the sources are not OK. If you don't understand please ask. thx Jytdog ( talk) 18:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The requested change is not specific enough. Edit requests should contain a verbatim description of the text to be added or deleted. "Please use the literature review in this article" is non-specific and will be declined. Please format your request in the form of "Please change x to y using z as the reference". |
Please use the literature review in this article. It is the most informative misophonia research to date. As well, there is not enough data on CBT/Exposure for it to be featured so prominently in the article. Editors should go through the lit review for relevant information since it addresses ALL current studies. Lit review can be found here:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00036/full Imperceptions ( talk) 11:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 12:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Please replace "Treatment consists of developing coping strategies through cognitive behavioral therapy and exposure therapy." with "There are currently no evidence-based approved treatments for misophonia". This is also consistent with the rest of the article. In mechanisms it says there is no treatment, yet the head of the page is misleading (both sources and the wikipedia page say there is no treatment).
Source 2,6, and please add this new source:
Brout, et al. “Investigating Misophonia: A Review of the Empirical Literature, Clinical Implications, and a Research Agenda.” Frontiers, Frontiers, 15 Jan. 2018, www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00036/full.
Imperceptions ( talk) 08:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please remove the image for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. This is misleading to have since the research says there is no evidence-based treatment. While small studies say there is a possibility of CBT, it is misleading to show the photo for a treatment that has not been proven and could lead to falsely believing it is advocated for by the page.
Source 2/6 or new above. Imperceptions ( talk) 08:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
|page=
number where the information resides. Please advise.Regards, Spintendo 09:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This is categorized under diseases and disorders, but the text of the article makes it clear that it isn't widely recognized as either. Should those categories be removed? Kufat ( talk) 17:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Draw the line between a reasonablee fear of the noisy neighbor's loud radio“, and this phobia. Jidanni ( talk) 11:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
Tom Dozier's websites Misophonia Institute and the Misophonia Association were added to the page again in bad faith. This is egregious. There are also NUMEROUS new studies that are not on the page at all, and the research is very inaccurate.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00036/full Investigating Misophonia: A Review of the Empirical Literature, Clinical Implications, and a Research Agenda
There is also a consensus on definition now: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.05.21254951v1.full.pdf
142.134.103.54 (
talk)
11:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
References
On reading this topic it struck me that surely most people suffer a degree of misophonia, as most (anecdotally) claim to be irritated by the sound - or even just the sight - of someone scraping their fingernails down a chalkboard.
I don't feel qualified enough to edit the article, but I'd suggest that this is sufficiently relevant to warrant being mentioned. Cottswilde ( talk) 04:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
viusorrophoiba is a fear of smiles. 94.174.64.118 ( talk) 21:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
@ AlsoWukai has changed the line reading:
"the connection between"
to
"the connection among"
presumably to make use of a more "active" voice, and favouring a particular style.
However, in the paper to which this refers language is finely used, and "connection between" is used precisely. Some examples:
aims to retrain the brain to extinguish specific, tinnitus-related functional connections between the auditory and the
limbic and autonomic nervous systems
signal goes through strong functional connections between the medial geniculate body and
the lateral nucleus of the amygdala, a crucial component of the limbic system.
reflexes in governing the connections between the auditory and other brain systems.
There are several more instances where "between" is used in the plural sense (pun!), and to my reading makes an important distinction.
I have no desire to be accused again of edit war, and so raise the matter first in the Article Talk, to give the editor the opportunity to explain their position and preference.
ChanceryBlack (
talk)
22:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This source is referenced as having explored the “connection between the three conditions” and “the role each play in the condition DST“, but there’s no indication of what the paper concludes about these connections or the role that misophonia plays in DST, without which what we say about it isn’t terribly informative. I can only see the abstract; does the actual paper say something a bit more informative about this? Brunton ( talk) 21:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The professor’s name (and the “who”) is not really needed in the article. The reference looks like a perfectly good reviewed secondary source; if someone with access to the full article can briefly summarise the relevant findings it can be presented in Wikipedia’s voice, and attributed to the authors of the paper via the reference. Obviously, within IP "fair use" restraints, I could quote massively from the paper in regard to your questions, and include that within the Article…
. If it’s to be included in the article it should really be in your own words rather than as quotations.
As it is at present, the paragraph about this reference tells us something about Prof Jastreboff, but not much about misophonia. If it can’t be summarised in a way that makes it more appropriate to the article then it would probably be better in a “further reading” section.
Brunton (
talk)
18:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I used the "into the public domain" phrase because, prior to the audiologyonline piece, the term had been known only to the Jastreboffs, Guy Lee, and the immediate team. If you read the history, it would appear that there were misgivings and doubts about the term - it being open to mis-interpretation, as indeed has happened.
I suspect that the use in two non-peer reviewed pieces was part of the "testing" for the understanding and interpretation of the term prior to the peer review process and the use of a neologism.
ChanceryBlack (
talk)
10:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
ITHS being the International Tinnitus and Hyperacusis Society as has now been clarified.
The newsletters were fairly ephemeral and not a "Journal" as such, under DOI/PURL/etc contr olCurrently the link goes to a copy held at tinnitus.org, but I'm aware of a private archive (available freely on-line) that has quite a lot of ITHS material, it being curated by a one-time member.
Which is the best link - the .org one which is likely to be maintained, and may have some authority (though domain registrars are no longer fussy about .org), or the more complete archive held privately? ChanceryBlack ( talk) 11:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
An example of misophonia in a popular TV Drama is repeatedly removed, with changing rationales from those responsible.
Previous removals gave the reason as defects in citation, specifically with regard to the use of unacceptable user-generated sites.
I accept that correction, and have replaced the source by a reference to the specific episode on an authorised host.
The latest rationale for removal is stated thus:
If you are going to insert something pop-cult about Misophonia in this article, you need a decent secondary source who noticed it and bothered to write something about it, existing is not enough. See
WP:PROPORTION.
I have read the page on Proportion, which now redirects to "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". There is nothing relevant on that page.
Philosophically, I take issue with the statement "existing is not enough". That would indeed be a failure of a "Neutral point of view"
There seems to be something of an antipathy towards what is described as "pop-cult". It does however exist, and inclusion of a newly recognised condition in such may stimulate discussion, interest, and understanding.
If not, then I suggest the whole "Society and culture" section should be removed.
ChanceryBlack (
talk)
07:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The line about "In 2016, Quiet Please,..." would be moved to this new section. For those who seem to have concerns about the origin and intent of linked material, I would draw attention to this documentary being both crowd sourced, and crowd funded.
References
I have the isbn 9781478013174 version. In that the documentary "Quiet Please" occurs on page 193 in the Notes to Chapter two, and, of course, in the references. The current article version shows:
Peterson, Marina (5 February 2021). Atmospheric Noise: The Indefinite Urbanism of Los Angeles. Duke University Press. p. 121. ISBN 978-1-4780-1317-4.
[my emphasis]
ChanceryBlack ( talk) 12:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the (ce) has removed the honorifics for the two Jastreboffs, and also the role of Guy Lee, who was a classicist,not a medical specialist.
As noted previously by @
Gråbergs Gråa Sång:
"Who" (or [ who?) is an important question. Who is this person WP is telling me about? An alt-med blogger? MD? Politician?
Again, we are losing important, relevant information in the (ce) process, the rationale for which is not explained, or even presented.
Is there any Wikipedia rule against using academics' titles, and their specialities - especially when it adds to the understanding of the Article?
ChanceryBlack (
talk)
22:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Once again we have the unilateral, undiscussed, removal of a helpful link. If I revert, then I will be accused of "edit war".
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#External links states:
"Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that can increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. Whenever writing or editing an article, consider not only what to put in the article, but what links to include to help the reader find related information,..."
Note please, the "readers' understanding" part. This is not for the convenience of Wikipedia editors, academics, copy-editors. This is for readers, the public, who have come to Wikipedia for information, and to understand the topic.
A particular editor, appears to have a personal vendetta against the inclusion of what is referred to as "pop-cult". That is not a service to the reader.
This particular documentary provides a useful service in taking the personal histories (the "primary reference" if you like) and assembling, curating, those references into a stable, referable source, against which readers may judge their own experience, and follow up more directed e/inquiry. That's a secondary ... so a legitimate inclusion in Wikipedia. Had it been a self-published video on, for example, FB, igram, tiktok etc etc, then yes - I would agree with the reservations about the work.
This, and examples such as the previously linked "The Old Man" drama, are part of being informed about the disorder.
Let us remember:
Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia that contains information on all branches of knowledge.
benefit readers ... accessible.
ChanceryBlack (
talk)
11:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 3 April 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
CT-7567-501 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by CT-7567-501 ( talk) 21:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Um...so then why does the infobox state that misophonia is a psychiatric condition? And why only psychiatry? Why aren't audiology or neurology also listed as relevant specialties? Given that there "are no standard diagnostic criteria" and "little research" concerning misophonia, there's as much basis for listing it as an audiological or neurological disorder as a psychiatric one.
A term that was coined in recent years, “misophonia” is not a scientifically recognized psychiatric, audiological disorder, or neurological disorder. It should not be listed as a disorder. Whoever listed it under these things likely has a conflict of interest opposing the neutral, scientifically evident objective of WikiPedia.
Just as “sensitive” or “high empathy disorder” are not real medical conditions, misophonia is not either.
While misophonia is not a disorder, the stress that people who have it can be associated with psychiatric disorders.
The current approach to misophonia is treating comorbid disorders. The current approach method is similar to the treatment for anxiety disorders, personality disorder, and post traumatic stress disorders. It involves psychiatric medication and therapy to reduce the stressful response towards the identified sound triggers. Treatment may include dialectical behavioral therapy and exposure therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4701:1AB0:3D23:3BB1:70EE:8E36 ( talk) 23:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I find these numbers lack the scientific rigor necessary for a wiki article. This clearly depends more on task and environment than patient history. What percentage can happily do math or interpret complex legal texts, while listening to smacking or a leaf blower? What percentage is unaffected while mopping the floor? Compare that to constant A/C or rain.
And this surely conflates individual trauma with generic human traits of focus, acoustic information processing and stress level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.54.191.94 ( talk) 12:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mysterymachine88,
Macbookcat05 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Radish1904 ( talk) 01:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Adding content from a systematic review and current perspectives of Misophonia. I plan to add content to the lead, signs and symptoms, epidemiology, society and culture, and management sections of the article. The information added contextualizes misophonia as it relates to societal health. Added information on how much misophonia effects people in the US. -- Mysterymachine88 ( talk) 21:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not being disingenuous, there is an untold number of people who are driven up the wall by guitar-playing, dog-having, baby-having, neighing neighbors. Hard to believe that hating someone's "chewing" sounds is originating from a different mechanism than that sinking feeling when you realize that your upstairs neighbors have once again decided to have a party on Monday night. 86.63.168.150 ( talk) 22:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does anyone know if I actually have this or if I just dont like loud sounds? Usually when I play my video games, I turn the sound off, because every now and then theres some moderately quiet boom or gunfire or something and it scares the something-I-probably-shouldn't-say-here out of me, and I don't like loud noises in general, even when the sound isn't coming from a speaker. Do I have this? .. VFD642 (signed later)
Misophonia is a hearing issue, soft sound sensitivity is a brain issue, more like ADHD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.105.0 ( talk) 04:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Misophonia and Selective Sound Sensitivity are the same disorder. Marsha Johnson identified this disorder in 1997 and called it Selective Sound Sensitivity Syndrome (4S). [1] and Jastreboff and Jastreboff coined the term misophonia. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.219.90 ( talk) 16:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Misophonia is being found to be a common condition, so it seems the current wiki article needs amending (I don't know how to do that, nor do I have the time). Here's an article on research saying as much: "The present study explored the prevalence and descriptive characteristics of hyperacusis, defined as unusual intolerance of ordinary environmental sounds..." that definition is so broad as to encompass misophonia-positive respondents. Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14992020209056075
And from my personal, acutely misophonic, experience (as its defined by the wiki article), I know many people who, when I have shared about my experiences with misophonia, have responded... "Really? I thought I was the only one!" Or, "I know someone who deals with that exact same thing!" My husband, too, is totally freaky about the sound of scraping (especially fingernails) on fabric, among other triggers. From my informal research, I have noticed, too, a common correlation with musicianship and misophonia (as is noted in hyperacusis).
Dana 98.201.154.195 ( talk) 16:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The article referred to above is about hyperacusis, not misophonia. There was a recent study done at the University of South Florida in which the 483 participants (undergraduate psychology students, mostly women) had a misophonia prevalence rate of 20%. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.219.90 ( talk) 17:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The article referenced above has been misquoted and misinterpreted. It said 20% had misophonia-like symptoms, not misophonia. The article For example,a person who likes to keep stacks of paper aligned may have an OCD-like characteristic, yet does not by definition have OCD.
Bear in mind that if one out of five people had misophonia (a 20 % rate of occurrence), its prevalence would be greater than breast cancer. The CDC and NIH would have been heard about misophonia a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.246.248 ( talk) 22:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Aversion Therapy seems to be perfectly suited as a treatment for this particular disorder. I wonder if it has been tested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhoadess ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Aversion therapy has generally been reported to cause an increase in the severity of misophonia symptoms. There was an alternate method of treatment, which used a greatly reduced trigger stimulus presented at the 2014 Misophonia Association conference. This method of treatment was called the Neural Repatterning Treatment. Results of one case was presented showing a large reduction of the severity of misophonia over the course of a 2 month treatment. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.219.90 ( talk) 17:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
there are people who have the opposite of this. just google ASMR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.150.220 ( talk) 20:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Please, if you are going to add material to this article, first read Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sources policies. I've had to remove much of the content of this article because it was not cited to sources that meet Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria -- there seems to be increasing use of the term in the medical literature, (see this Google search, for example) please cite that instead of material blogs, support groups, web forums, etc. -- The Anome ( talk) 07:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted references to a website because it was a health service provider speculating about the cause of misophonia (i.e. citing a reference that makes no mention of misophonia) and effectively advertising their own treatment options on a commercial basis. As far as I can see, Wikipedia should not be used to advertise someone's commercial or professional services, nor to assert theories of causality without support from relevant research literature (Skinner in 1938 is not relevant to misophonia, unless you can find a description of *symptoms* like misophonia in his works). Ramachandran (2012) has presented preliminary findings in support of his hypothesis that misophonia is an autonomic disorder with an additional cognitive factor: he regards misophonia as a form of sound-emotion synesthesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.98.189 ( talk) 06:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I am writing just to let you monitor this article. I do not know Wikipedians here. (I'm French).
I was looking for information and I came across a source of this article.ref No. 10 ·
" Dozier, T.H. (2015). Counterconditioning treatment for misophonia. Clinical Case Studies, first published on January 20, 2015 as doi:10.1177/1534650114566924"
I do not know if Tom Dozier is neutral or not, he published under his nickname. but his email (written in the reference document) refers to the company he seems to advertising
.....@misophoniatreatment.com (I did not put the beginning of the email)
in the paper it is written:
"The author is a private practitioner, with a “doing business as” entity of the Misophonia Treatment Institute. He is the developer of the Misophonia Trigger Tamer and the Visual Trigger Tamer apps, which are patent pending"
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Misophonia&diff=646539201&oldid=646536297
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Misophonia&diff=646535517&oldid=645950083
I do not expect an answer, I'm just passing through. Vatadoshu ( talk) 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC) User:Vatadoshu
I will notify the bear know I wrote about him. @ Tomdozier:.. Vatadoshu ( talk) 18:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I notice that Tom Dozier, a private practitioner, has again included his treatment plan in the body of the page and has included his private practice website as a resource. This is against all Wiki. policy and is highly unethical. It has been removed; however, he continues to re-post his treatment plans and his practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.246.248 ( talk) 23:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
edit request declined for more discussion in this dif by user:Smalljim, a patrolling admin. Jytdog ( talk) 02:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
As currently written, this article does not consider the view that misophonia is a conditioned reflex phenomenon. This view is supported journal articles Jastreboff & Jastreboff, 2014, "Treatments for Decreased Sound Tolerance" and Dozier 2015, "Etiology, Composition, developmetn and maintenance of misophonia."
The article includes the view of 2 sources which are based on the theory that misophonia is a neurological condition based on defective brain structures (Agre Moller and Judeth Krauthammer). Both of these sources postulate the cause of misophonia. The view that misophonia needs to be added to provide balance on this topic.
I recommend adding information that includes the findings/views of Jastreboff & Jastreboff, 2014, "Treatments for Decreased Sound Tolerance" and Dozier 2015, "Etiology, Composition, developmetn and maintenance of misophonia."
The following is my suggested addition to the article, which could be included after paragraph 3 which postulates that misophonia is caused by abnormal brain function.
An alternate view, by two misophonia treatment providers, is that misophonia is a Pavlovian conditioned reflex.
[5]
[6] This view is based in part on observations of the responses of patients to treatments which exhibit active extinction and counterconditioning, which are two Pavlovian reflex processes. Another Pavlovian reflex process called "spontaneous recovery" has also been reported by patients during treatment.
[7]
The traditional view of misophonia, as an emotional reflex response to the trigger stimulus, is shown in Figure 1. As shown, the emotional response is directly elicited (involuntary response) by the trigger stimulus. An alternate model has been proposed in which misophonia is actually a physical (muscle) reflex elicited by the trigger stimulus, and the emotional response characteristic of misophonia is elicited by the physical jerk of the muscle in the body (see Figure 2). [7]
It was reported that over 95% of patients identified a physical (muscle) reflex directly elicited by the trigger, when they were tested in a clinical setting. [7] The reflexes are diverse. Patients have reported muscle contractions of shoulders, neck, whole arm, upper arm, only the left upper arm, legs (in many variations), toes, abdomen, chest, jaw, hands open, hands making a fist, face, squinting, gasping and more. Other patients reported internal reflexes including stomach constriction, nausea, intestine constriction, esophagus constriction, sexual arousal, urge to urinate, and unidentified movement sensations in the chest cavity. [7]
References
-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdozier ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
As someone who suffers from Misophonia I just wanted to say, that I think it is so important to include his work into the article. It is seriously the only treatment that I think could work and that Misophonia is a conditioned is a fact (at least from my point of view). His methods and the idea that Misophonia is a conditioned reflex should at least be mentioned. His work was also published in peer reviewed journals. So I don't see the problem. Earlyspatz Talk 22:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I know from experience that intentionally distracting noises like repeated clicking of pens or jingling of change is use for harassment. The human mind can keep track of at most 7 things at one time, by making noises around a person it cuts down on their ability to concentrate at work or school. The intention is to get them to emotionally meltdown and claim harassment. To which delusional and other psych labels can then be applied to the victim. This type of harassment work when an individual has no work or school friends present to contest this ill treatment. The jingling of change had its roots in "if you believe in fairies ring a bell" from Disney's Peter Pan, and is anti-transgender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.67.252 ( talk) 02:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Last I checked misophonia is a pretty common thing for people on the autism spectrum. I should know as I'm autistic and misophonic, and I've heard of other individuals wearing hearing protection day to day to prevent them from melting down. I also used to wear earmuffs to keep noise out as a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:f806:c900:b174:90b9:2f06:bd98 ( talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel there is a problem with the following citations, as they do not seem to be academic (yet are making sweeping statements about what the disorder is or may be).
Citing a "life coach" not a doctor. Her book and website seem to be directly selling her "life counseling" services. When I looked her book "Sound Rage" up on WorldCat her book is not shown - which leads me to wonder if it is even a peer-reviewed source, let alone medically legitimate enough to be citing "evidence" or "theories" in a way that may lead sufferers astray and to assume that there is enough research on the disorder.
Source 9 (a and b) states that "A 2013 review of neurological studies and fMRI studies of the brain as it relates to the disorder[9] postulated that abnormal or dysfunctional assessment of neural signals occurs in the anterior cingulate cortex and insular cortex" Judith T. Krauthamer (2013). Sound-Rage. A Primer of the Neurobiology and Psychology of a Little Known Anger Disorder. Chalcedony Press, 210 pgs.
Whether or not this is or is not true cannot be definitive as the source used is not an academic source, and is a personal book, written by a "life coach" - please see http://www.sound-rage.com/judith-t.-krauthamer.html ; though Ms. Krauthamer does have an undergraduate and graduate degree - she does not have a PhD (or undergrad, graduate respectively) in neuroscience, psychology, or any other related fields. As well, the source is not academic and therefore cannot be peer-reviewed or backed up by notable researchers or academic experts.
The second source from Ms. Krauthamer, I am not entirely sure if it is good/bad - I believe this should be reviewed as well. Since she is NOT a doctor, nor an official researcher, I believe it may be a sweeping assumption (yet again) to claim "People who have misophonia are most commonly angered by specific sounds, such as lip-smacking, slurping, throat-clearing, nail-clipping, chewing, drinking, tooth-brushing, breathing, sniffing, talking, sneezing, yawning, walking, gum-chewing or popping, laughing, snoring, swallowing, gulping, burping, clicking dentures, typing, coughing, humming, whistling, singing, certain consonants, or repetitive sounds.[16][17]
Perhaps minor amendments such as "may most commonly be" or other less definitive language.
Krauthamer, Judith T. (April 2014) Descriptive Statistics of Misophonia.Retrieved online.
Upon reviewing the sources on the page, I found it quite odd that one statement (which is led by a comment about there being no clinical evidence) had three citations, all from separate articles by the same individual, Tom Dozier.
"Some misophonic individuals responded favorably to treatment protocols that included active extinction or counterconditioning, which are both conditioning processes that allow a conditioned reflex to decay.[8][13][14][15]"
Sources listed :
Dozier, T. H. (2015). "Treating the initial physical reflex of misophonia with the neural repatterning technique: A counterconditioning procedure". Psychological Thought 8: 189–210
Dozier T. H. (2015). Psychological Thought
Dozier T. H. (2015). "Counter-conditioning treatment for misophonia". Clinical Case Studies 14: 374–387.
Upon reading the talk page I have discovered that this individual has repeatedly spammed the page in the past and has been trying to sell treatments for the disorder. He is a business entity (as previously mentioned) and does not seem to have any doctoral background.
Ethically, I believe it is unwise to advertise "counter conditioning" at this time as there is no evidence as to whether or not it can help, and especially, no medical/clinical data and research that shows it is safe. Since the disorder is so unknown, sufferers may feel the need to try anything that "may help" and it is dangerous to lead them to a source that has been blatantly advertising and has not gone through the proper channels to test treatments. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sillyrob (
talk •
contribs)
11:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, due to yet more recent conflicted editing on this article, I went through and recorded all the conflicted editing in the headers above. Folks, please do not abuse Wikipedia to get your ideas into the public sphere. That is not what Wikipedia is for.
I went through the sourcing in the article, and evaluated the sources per WP:MEDRS - almost none of them were OK. I went and found the most recent reviews on pubmed (the box at the very top of this talk page, has a link you can use to find recent reviews in pubmed) and there were only about 5 there. One of the sources already in the article that was OK (the only one I think) was from one of the issues of the 2014 edition of the journal, Seminars in Hearing. That journal is not pubmed or medline indexed (one of the criteria we use to judge journal quality) but it is indexed in SCOPUS so it is OK. I was very happy to find the Duddy article in the same issue, because it is is well done and careful review (not to mention that Duddy doesn't appear to have come to Wikipedia to advocate her views). The most recent review by Cavannah was also great (and is available for free - even better). So I read the good sources I found, and rebuilt the article. I also re-ordered it per WP:MEDMOS
Going forward, please abide by the COI guideline and do not violate WP:SELFCITE. If anybody with an academic conflict wants to propose using your own source, please propose it here for other editors to discuss. Please. I did leave various papers/books by various people who have edited in a conflicted way in the "Further reading" section. I don't usually do that, but am trying to assuage. None of those sources meet MEDRS so please do not try to build content from them. OK, that's all. Jytdog ( talk) 07:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Jtydog.
Thanks for everything you've done. Please understand that my only interest here is to have quality info on this page so that people are not misinformed. Please reconsider the "alternative names" sound-rage and decreased sound tolerance. Decreased Sound Tolerance subsumes misophonia according the the Jastreboff's but it not a "name" for the disorder. This is only going to confuse people. Sound-rage was termed by someone who wrote a self-published book about misophonia and the title includes the term "anger-disorder". There is no research to support that misophonia should be classified as an "anger" or "rage" disorder. This is not only confusing to people. It is also harmful. The Jastreboff's coined the name Misophonia, and then Selective Sound Sensitivity was suggested by an respected audiologist who has been very involved in treating the disorder. In addition, prior to the Jastreboff's terming the disorder, Occupational Therapists were calling what seems to be identical symptoms "auditory over-responsivity" under the umbrella terms, Sensory Processing Disorder (which as I am sure you know) has a large body of peer-reviewed literature. The names are confusing enough to people as it is. Please consider revising.
Also, I think it is important to note that while a reference is made to Misophonia not being in the DSM-IV, we are now using the DSM-5 (which is written without the Roman numeral). Again, these kinds of issues confuse people.
Finally, while the Moller site is a good one, the idea that misophonia starts with "close relatives and pets" is simply not true. I believe when he wrote that, there was less known about the disorder. I have been following every article that informs misophonia (as well as basic science, and potential comorbid disorders) for almost 20 years and I can assure you there is not one study that supports this problem beginning with pets. In addition, research has not yet revealed whether the aversion to specific auditory stimuli starts in childhood, adulthood, adolescence, etc. and certainly does not indicate via rigorous research that it starts with people to whom the sufferer is close. That is anecdotal.
Finally, I would appreciate it if you remove me from your list of COI. I made ONE attempt at editing the page having absolutely no understanding of how wiki works (and I remember you were helpful in regard to that situation). I have no desire to edit the page and would prefer to do so through you or another experienced editor. As you may recall, I am not skilled in the wiki platform and unfortunately I cannot spare the time it would take me to become proficient. However, I am a respectable psychologist, who has done a great deal of advocacy for SPD and Misophonia and it demeans my character to be on a list with people who clearly were using wiki to promote their self-interest. I am not promoting anything but the truth, and that should be obvious.
Again I appreciate everything you have done and I will continue to send any updates I feel the Misophonia page should have through you. However, it is not right to have me on "a list" of people who have been banned for spamming and using wiki at a platform to promote themselves to try to sell merchandise or services. I have done nothing of the kind and certainly don't plan to. My unfortunate naivety and frustration which occurred back in June was resolved with Dr. Meis, although again I never came back to the page to edit after that because it was too upsetting to me.
Thank you for your great effort here.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Jo Brout — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjobrout ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I believe the major concern here is:
Diane F. Duddy1, Kristi A.M. Oeding1 1Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri"
These sweeping comments about the disorder are very distasteful, and by a doctor that clearly has no actual background in Misophonia. Please understand how stating we may be "suicidal" or triggered by pets can be quite alarming - especially for new sufferers. I would be happy to research the author and send you background, so that you could determine whether or not it is truly a valuable source - I am advising you, that it is not. As well, I do not work FOR, Jennifer, (and it is a female pronoun, please). I work for myself.
Imperceptions ( talk) 14:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the following sections be added, at your discretion - obviously they should not be in body, as they are not academic, but I do believe that since Misophonia is so rare, it should perhaps be added, in its own column :
"Amygdala Modulation - Why Fingernails On Blackboards Make Us Crazy."
Joyce Cohen NY Times (I believe this is cited elsewhere on page too)
Thank you. Imperceptions ( talk) 03:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC) - Sorry, I didn't realize putting heading would separate it into 3 sections on here! Imperceptions ( talk) 03:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I am sending you some statements, of which may benefit the Misophonia page.
I do not have any conflict of interest with the following article, nor its writers.
These are direct statements from the article, and I have not re-written them, as I do not want to suggest anything specifically - however, this paper may be a great resource for the page and I have highlighted the parts that I believe are beneficial - but editors may check on their own, as the article is linked:
-Misophonia is a relatively unexplored chronic condition in which a person experiences autonomic arousal (analogous to an involuntary “fight-or-flight” response) to certain innocuous or repetitive sounds such as chewing, pen clicking, and lip smacking.
-Results were consistent with early reports of the phenomenon, such as the critical characteristic of misophonia being a disproportionately aversive reaction is in response to common sounds in everyday life.
-Through conducting interviews, we also identified other interesting aspects of misophonia that were not previously apparent. In particular, subjects reported that misophonia can be modulated by social expectations as well as situational context, indicating that the condition may be more complicated than merely an aversive response to the purely physical properties of sounds.
-[O]ur qualitative results are in line with all of the diagnostic criteria proposed by Schröder et al. (2013) which, shortly summarized are: (A) aversive and angry feelings evoked by particular sounds, (B) rare potentially aggressive outbursts, (C) recognition by the misophonic individual that his/her behavior is excessive, (D) avoidance behavior, (E) distress and interference in daily life, and lastly, (F) the lack of another condition to account for all symptoms.
Link: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00296/full
Citation: Edelstein, Miren, David Brang, Romke Rouw, and Vilayanur S. Ramachandran. "Misophonia: Physiological Investigations and Case Descriptions." Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 7 (2013). Print.
Imperceptions ( talk) 12:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to utilize the Cavanna lit review as an updated source that reflects the current findings regarding misophonia, rather than the Moller source. I know the Moller source is a tertiary source and therefore preferable. However, it is outdated compared to the Cavanna (2015) review, which according to WP:MEDRS is also highly acceptable. Jtydog you might note that Moller also compares misophonia to "exploding head syndrome" which is something I think is also on your Pages to fixed" in the wikimed community. No offense to him, whatsoever, it just appears that he is proving an opinion that is not at all within the scope of any of the other research, and this is true of the "pet" reference as well. Thanks! Drjobrout ( talk) 00:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Bruxner, G (2016), "'Mastication rage': a review of misophonia - an under-recognised symptom of psychiatric relevance?", Australasian Psychiatry: Bulletin Of Royal Australian And New Zealand College Of Psychiatrists, 24 (2): 195–197, I understand that there are few sources, and even fewer secondary sources on the disorder, however... this citation has been used quite a few times throughout the article. Currently there are 10 citations attributed to this one source. I am wondering if any one has any thoughts on this. What are the general rules for project medicine and using sources all over an article? AbsenceOfSound ( talk) 04:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I am wondering if the "External Links" should include a link that has been sourced and listed in the text. Is this redundant? Quiet Please has been mentioned heavily, and has been sourced several times. What are the usual policies for external links? Are they usually listed as other sources as well? In particular, I'm asking you, @SageRad after reviewing the Recent Edits. Samara-x ( talk) 22:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think that it's extremely useful for readers to see that there is a film about this condition. I think that's a useful external link. I would support adding the external link if it is not mentioned in the article itself. SageRad ( talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This statement, "It may be a form of sound–emotion synesthesia, and has parallels with some anxiety disorders" currently appears under the "Classification" heading. Since it is speculation I am wondering if it would be better off reworded and added to "Research Directions"? Perhaps something like this:
It has been suggested that the disorder----"may be a form of sound–emotion synesthesia, and has parallels with some anxiety disorders"
Any thoughts? @Ozzie10aaaa @SageRad Samara-x ( talk) 03:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The article states "As of 2014 there was no evidence-based research available on misophonia."
I've found this paper reporting on some research. It's not extensive and it's not a review article, but it's something. I wanted to note this, and i'll add it if i can get to it, if nobody adds it first. SageRad ( talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
And, a good recent source here that could be integrated into the article. SageRad ( talk) 01:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The pathophysiology of the anomalous physiological/autonomic effects in the context of misophonia has recently been investigated: a study by Edelstein et al showed increased autonomic responses to auditory (but not visual) stimuli in six subjects with misophonia, compared to typically developed controls.7 Albeit in a small cohort, findings from this study using skin conductance responses provided an objective corroboration to subjective reports that specific sounds evoke intense emotional and physical reactions.
I unwatched this for a while. I checked it over and sure enough a bunch of promotional/advocacy editing has crept back in. I cleaned it up and am watching this again. Content about the putative condition must be sourced per WP:MEDRS. Research should be sourced to secondary sources per WP:MEDRS[, WP:SCIRS, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. We need to be very careful to source non-biomedical information to high quality reliable sources. If content is sourced only to primary sources, blogs and editorials that is a sign that things have gone off the rails.
As is evident to any independent editor who reviews this Talk page and its archives as well as the article's history, from time to time this article has been skewed by advocacy editing favoring one or more "teams" involved in misophonia treatment and research and criticizing other teams.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is not a vehicle for advocacy for the condition nor for any teams working on it, per the policy, WP:SOAPBOX. Jytdog ( talk) 17:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Number of edits from
[2] to
[3] in 51 minutes: 27. All of them with a similar sort of goal of removing material or making it seem that misphonia is not an actual thing. Edits like
this one with edit summary :remove statement that "misophonia is X". not clear that this exists and we cannot treat it as though it does, at this time" seem to be pushing a cause to make the article absolutely not state that misophonia is a thing that exists. It seems Jytdog's mission is to make sure that the article absolutely will not speak of misophonia because he does not think it is known to exist. I say that is wrong according to reliable sources and is not neutral in point of view. We have a fundamental conflict of perspectives and goals here. I think
this version from before the rapid editing by Jytdog is a better than the current version, more useful for a reader, and more neutral. I think the article has suffered a sterilization.
I think we need a good, solid meta-discussion with all cards on the table. Jytdog, what is your goal for the article? How do you want to see the topic treated? Who are you accusing of "advocacy editing" or any other improper motives? Please be specific and do not put out general accusations without objects to be hanging in the air over this discussion. What problems do you see? Do you think there are people with an improper agenda trying to make it "seem" like misophonia is a real condition and can be written about in Wikivoice as such, using reliable sources? If so then state that outright. No more innuendo please.
SageRad (
talk)
13:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"Misophonia is characterized by a negative reaction to a sound with a specific pattern and meaning to a given individual. In this paper, we review the clinical features of this relatively common yet underinvestigated condition, with focus on co-occurring neurodevelopmental disorders."for instance. Can we agree that the article could say "misophonia is..." and state something stated in a review article? That seems pretty basic WP:V to me, supported by the first sentence of an abstract of a review article cited in the article itself. SageRad ( talk) 21:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I came across some information regarding the terms condition and disorder that might be helpful in editing this article.
In short, what distinguishes condition, disease, and disorder from one another would seem to be their relative emphases on functional change, structural change, presence of signs and symptoms, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the gravity a writer wishes to convey:
• Condition simply indicates a state of health, whether well or ill; a condition conferring illness might be further classified as a disease or a disorder—however, condition might be used in place of disease or disorder when a value-neutral term is desired.
• Disease denotes a condition characterized by functional impairment, structural change, and the presence of specific signs and symptoms. As an aside, Dorland’s equates the terms illness and sickness with disease; while these are often used to indicate the state or experience of disease, they are also sometimes used as value-neutral alternatives for disease.
• Disorder, in contrast, denotes a condition characterized by functional impairment without structural change and, while certain disorders or categories of disorders might be accompanied by specific signs and symptoms, their presence is not required for a condition to be termed a disorder. Like condition, disorder is sometimes used as a value-neutral term in place of disease.
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I made a couple of edits which were promptly reverted here.
I invite all editors to discuss the topic of this article and how it should be represented in Wikipedia.
Looks like we'll have to edit the article body to correct the error that have accumulated, before editing the lead to be more accurate.
Recent review articles that fully with with WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements for biomedical claims state that misophonia is a condition. Therefore, the opening sentence should be a simple definition of what the thing is.
The tone of the article, and the lead, should not be one of discrediting or disbelief. The article should follow the available reliable sources.
We must also distinguish between biomedical claims (about the existence of misophonia as a condition, symptomology, etiology, and effectiveness of treatments) versus claims that are not biomedical in nature (such as it not being included yet in the DSM, and proposed treatments or strategies of coping -- as long as it is not claiming effectiveness about those treatments -- and coping strategies reported by people in popular press articles). The fact that WP:MEDRS is required for biomedical claims does not mean that WP:MEDRS is a requirement for every single source in an article that also contains biomedical claims.
So, let us discuss and move forward. Let us be open and honest and generous in how we speak with one another, and not tendentious or stubborn. Let us be honest with the goal of writing a good article that follows reliable sources. SageRad ( talk) 12:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It is hoped that by combining qualitative and quantitative data from large populations, it will become possible to fully elucidate the hidden nature of this intrusive condition and alleviate the distress that it can cause.
My edit has been reverted by CFCF. I invite you to talk here on the talk page. Obviously there is disagreement about content, and the right way to handle this is to discuss it here, in good faith, with a generous spirit, with the goal of making a good article by consensus if possible. Please discuss. Simply reverting is not good practice. Thanks in advance. SageRad ( talk) 16:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
As per good practice described by Template:POV, i added a tag to indicate that NPOV of this article is disputed, as it is under discussion here actively and there seems to be editing without due discussion occurring. As per Template:POV, do not remove this until there is consensus that the article is in a good NPOV state. The issue as i see it is that the article should simply define misophonia in the first sentence as a condition as described by recent WP:MEDRS sources. Not doing so strikes me as not being neutral point of view in light of the sources on the subject. SageRad ( talk) 16:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Another element of the NPOV issue is that the lede says "Proponents suggest..." followed by a statement that is stated in reliable sources without such attribution, and therefore the "Proponents suggest..." part of that sentence evokes a POV of disbelief / distancing / discrediting through unnecessary attribution. SageRad ( talk) 16:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Misophonia is characterized by a negative reaction to a sound with a specific pattern and meaning to a given individual. In this paper, we review the clinical features of this relatively common yet underinvestigated condition, with focus on co-occurring neurodevelopmental disorders.
Misophonia, literally "hatred of sound," was proposed in 2000 as a disorder in which negative emotions, thoughts, and physical reactions are triggered by specific sounds.
Removal of the POV tag for the second time by another editor is inappropriate. That editor has been pinged and has failed to discuss yet. SageRad ( talk) 18:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I read this again, and still I find you're engaging in SYN or OR, and incorrectly at that. Even if sometimes or often confined with other conditions, it is being called a condition in its own right by reliable sources. And, other reading on the condition reveals similar treatment. My rather strong reckoning is that it's quite verifiable to call it a condition, and in fact is the right thing to do if following reliable sources. SageRad ( talk) 18:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
By the way, why don't you respond to my comment on your misreading of the article that you cited on nosology? That it allows for tentatively idiopathic conditions to be called conditions? Let's have some closure of dialog, some acknowledgment, some honest treatment of the matter. SageRad ( talk) 19:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem lies in that you are requiring the word "condition" to refer to a disease with known aetiology/phenomenology, whereas I don't think that is the exclusive definition of the word even per the nosology article that you cited above. SageRad ( talk) 19:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Bob K31416 you said here and somewhere in the morass of JImbo's talk page that you think there is some misunderstanding that you attempted to correct in this dif and this dif.
The key dispute between SageRad and me was that SageRad believes that MEDRS sources say that misophonia is actually a condition, and in my view the MEDRS sources make it clear that it is has been proposed as one, but not accepted.
Yes there was some confusion in the discussion above (some of it stemming from an inaccurate description by me, of what the content currently said at one point), but it was not over "disorder" vs "condition". You have misunderstood the dispute. Jytdog ( talk) 22:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, Presently the third sentence in the article is, "Misophonia has no classification as an auditory, neurological, or psychiatric condition, there are no standard diagnostic criteria, it is not recognized in the DSM-IV or the ICD-10, and there is little research on its prevalence or treatment." In this sentence, should "condition" be changed to "disorder"? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 00:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see from your response why you prefer in that sentence "condition" over "disorder".I Jytdog ( talk) 01:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
} Irrational? I'm going to bed. Roxy the dog. bark 01:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
FYI Jytdog, In the following I highlighted in green a couple of items for your consideration.
You wrote:
[6]
is a condition proposed in 2000' honors all the sources."
And you also wrote: [7]
is a condition that was proposed in 2000in which ...' "
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 22:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not very good at editing medical articles, so not sure if this BBC news report contains anything of interest? JezGrove ( talk) 09:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Σοφία Κουτσουβέλη in this set of diffs you introduced content about misophonia based on the following refs;
None of those refs are OK for supporting WP:Biomedical information per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog ( talk) 16:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
There were some good edits in the diff. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. 108.8.202.134 ( talk) 12:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Ezdelt please do read about the kinds of sources we use for content about health in the note on your talk page at User_talk:Ezdelt#References. We don't use primary sources and press releases touting them. The content you added here and here is not OK because the sources are not OK. If you don't understand please ask. thx Jytdog ( talk) 18:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The requested change is not specific enough. Edit requests should contain a verbatim description of the text to be added or deleted. "Please use the literature review in this article" is non-specific and will be declined. Please format your request in the form of "Please change x to y using z as the reference". |
Please use the literature review in this article. It is the most informative misophonia research to date. As well, there is not enough data on CBT/Exposure for it to be featured so prominently in the article. Editors should go through the lit review for relevant information since it addresses ALL current studies. Lit review can be found here:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00036/full Imperceptions ( talk) 11:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 12:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Please replace "Treatment consists of developing coping strategies through cognitive behavioral therapy and exposure therapy." with "There are currently no evidence-based approved treatments for misophonia". This is also consistent with the rest of the article. In mechanisms it says there is no treatment, yet the head of the page is misleading (both sources and the wikipedia page say there is no treatment).
Source 2,6, and please add this new source:
Brout, et al. “Investigating Misophonia: A Review of the Empirical Literature, Clinical Implications, and a Research Agenda.” Frontiers, Frontiers, 15 Jan. 2018, www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00036/full.
Imperceptions ( talk) 08:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please remove the image for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. This is misleading to have since the research says there is no evidence-based treatment. While small studies say there is a possibility of CBT, it is misleading to show the photo for a treatment that has not been proven and could lead to falsely believing it is advocated for by the page.
Source 2/6 or new above. Imperceptions ( talk) 08:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
|page=
number where the information resides. Please advise.Regards, Spintendo 09:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This is categorized under diseases and disorders, but the text of the article makes it clear that it isn't widely recognized as either. Should those categories be removed? Kufat ( talk) 17:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Draw the line between a reasonablee fear of the noisy neighbor's loud radio“, and this phobia. Jidanni ( talk) 11:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
Tom Dozier's websites Misophonia Institute and the Misophonia Association were added to the page again in bad faith. This is egregious. There are also NUMEROUS new studies that are not on the page at all, and the research is very inaccurate.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00036/full Investigating Misophonia: A Review of the Empirical Literature, Clinical Implications, and a Research Agenda
There is also a consensus on definition now: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.05.21254951v1.full.pdf
142.134.103.54 (
talk)
11:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
References
On reading this topic it struck me that surely most people suffer a degree of misophonia, as most (anecdotally) claim to be irritated by the sound - or even just the sight - of someone scraping their fingernails down a chalkboard.
I don't feel qualified enough to edit the article, but I'd suggest that this is sufficiently relevant to warrant being mentioned. Cottswilde ( talk) 04:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
viusorrophoiba is a fear of smiles. 94.174.64.118 ( talk) 21:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
@ AlsoWukai has changed the line reading:
"the connection between"
to
"the connection among"
presumably to make use of a more "active" voice, and favouring a particular style.
However, in the paper to which this refers language is finely used, and "connection between" is used precisely. Some examples:
aims to retrain the brain to extinguish specific, tinnitus-related functional connections between the auditory and the
limbic and autonomic nervous systems
signal goes through strong functional connections between the medial geniculate body and
the lateral nucleus of the amygdala, a crucial component of the limbic system.
reflexes in governing the connections between the auditory and other brain systems.
There are several more instances where "between" is used in the plural sense (pun!), and to my reading makes an important distinction.
I have no desire to be accused again of edit war, and so raise the matter first in the Article Talk, to give the editor the opportunity to explain their position and preference.
ChanceryBlack (
talk)
22:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This source is referenced as having explored the “connection between the three conditions” and “the role each play in the condition DST“, but there’s no indication of what the paper concludes about these connections or the role that misophonia plays in DST, without which what we say about it isn’t terribly informative. I can only see the abstract; does the actual paper say something a bit more informative about this? Brunton ( talk) 21:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The professor’s name (and the “who”) is not really needed in the article. The reference looks like a perfectly good reviewed secondary source; if someone with access to the full article can briefly summarise the relevant findings it can be presented in Wikipedia’s voice, and attributed to the authors of the paper via the reference. Obviously, within IP "fair use" restraints, I could quote massively from the paper in regard to your questions, and include that within the Article…
. If it’s to be included in the article it should really be in your own words rather than as quotations.
As it is at present, the paragraph about this reference tells us something about Prof Jastreboff, but not much about misophonia. If it can’t be summarised in a way that makes it more appropriate to the article then it would probably be better in a “further reading” section.
Brunton (
talk)
18:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I used the "into the public domain" phrase because, prior to the audiologyonline piece, the term had been known only to the Jastreboffs, Guy Lee, and the immediate team. If you read the history, it would appear that there were misgivings and doubts about the term - it being open to mis-interpretation, as indeed has happened.
I suspect that the use in two non-peer reviewed pieces was part of the "testing" for the understanding and interpretation of the term prior to the peer review process and the use of a neologism.
ChanceryBlack (
talk)
10:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
ITHS being the International Tinnitus and Hyperacusis Society as has now been clarified.
The newsletters were fairly ephemeral and not a "Journal" as such, under DOI/PURL/etc contr olCurrently the link goes to a copy held at tinnitus.org, but I'm aware of a private archive (available freely on-line) that has quite a lot of ITHS material, it being curated by a one-time member.
Which is the best link - the .org one which is likely to be maintained, and may have some authority (though domain registrars are no longer fussy about .org), or the more complete archive held privately? ChanceryBlack ( talk) 11:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
An example of misophonia in a popular TV Drama is repeatedly removed, with changing rationales from those responsible.
Previous removals gave the reason as defects in citation, specifically with regard to the use of unacceptable user-generated sites.
I accept that correction, and have replaced the source by a reference to the specific episode on an authorised host.
The latest rationale for removal is stated thus:
If you are going to insert something pop-cult about Misophonia in this article, you need a decent secondary source who noticed it and bothered to write something about it, existing is not enough. See
WP:PROPORTION.
I have read the page on Proportion, which now redirects to "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". There is nothing relevant on that page.
Philosophically, I take issue with the statement "existing is not enough". That would indeed be a failure of a "Neutral point of view"
There seems to be something of an antipathy towards what is described as "pop-cult". It does however exist, and inclusion of a newly recognised condition in such may stimulate discussion, interest, and understanding.
If not, then I suggest the whole "Society and culture" section should be removed.
ChanceryBlack (
talk)
07:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The line about "In 2016, Quiet Please,..." would be moved to this new section. For those who seem to have concerns about the origin and intent of linked material, I would draw attention to this documentary being both crowd sourced, and crowd funded.
References
I have the isbn 9781478013174 version. In that the documentary "Quiet Please" occurs on page 193 in the Notes to Chapter two, and, of course, in the references. The current article version shows:
Peterson, Marina (5 February 2021). Atmospheric Noise: The Indefinite Urbanism of Los Angeles. Duke University Press. p. 121. ISBN 978-1-4780-1317-4.
[my emphasis]
ChanceryBlack ( talk) 12:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the (ce) has removed the honorifics for the two Jastreboffs, and also the role of Guy Lee, who was a classicist,not a medical specialist.
As noted previously by @
Gråbergs Gråa Sång:
"Who" (or [ who?) is an important question. Who is this person WP is telling me about? An alt-med blogger? MD? Politician?
Again, we are losing important, relevant information in the (ce) process, the rationale for which is not explained, or even presented.
Is there any Wikipedia rule against using academics' titles, and their specialities - especially when it adds to the understanding of the Article?
ChanceryBlack (
talk)
22:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Once again we have the unilateral, undiscussed, removal of a helpful link. If I revert, then I will be accused of "edit war".
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#External links states:
"Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that can increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. Whenever writing or editing an article, consider not only what to put in the article, but what links to include to help the reader find related information,..."
Note please, the "readers' understanding" part. This is not for the convenience of Wikipedia editors, academics, copy-editors. This is for readers, the public, who have come to Wikipedia for information, and to understand the topic.
A particular editor, appears to have a personal vendetta against the inclusion of what is referred to as "pop-cult". That is not a service to the reader.
This particular documentary provides a useful service in taking the personal histories (the "primary reference" if you like) and assembling, curating, those references into a stable, referable source, against which readers may judge their own experience, and follow up more directed e/inquiry. That's a secondary ... so a legitimate inclusion in Wikipedia. Had it been a self-published video on, for example, FB, igram, tiktok etc etc, then yes - I would agree with the reservations about the work.
This, and examples such as the previously linked "The Old Man" drama, are part of being informed about the disorder.
Let us remember:
Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia that contains information on all branches of knowledge.
benefit readers ... accessible.
ChanceryBlack (
talk)
11:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 3 April 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
CT-7567-501 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by CT-7567-501 ( talk) 21:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Um...so then why does the infobox state that misophonia is a psychiatric condition? And why only psychiatry? Why aren't audiology or neurology also listed as relevant specialties? Given that there "are no standard diagnostic criteria" and "little research" concerning misophonia, there's as much basis for listing it as an audiological or neurological disorder as a psychiatric one.
A term that was coined in recent years, “misophonia” is not a scientifically recognized psychiatric, audiological disorder, or neurological disorder. It should not be listed as a disorder. Whoever listed it under these things likely has a conflict of interest opposing the neutral, scientifically evident objective of WikiPedia.
Just as “sensitive” or “high empathy disorder” are not real medical conditions, misophonia is not either.
While misophonia is not a disorder, the stress that people who have it can be associated with psychiatric disorders.
The current approach to misophonia is treating comorbid disorders. The current approach method is similar to the treatment for anxiety disorders, personality disorder, and post traumatic stress disorders. It involves psychiatric medication and therapy to reduce the stressful response towards the identified sound triggers. Treatment may include dialectical behavioral therapy and exposure therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4701:1AB0:3D23:3BB1:70EE:8E36 ( talk) 23:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I find these numbers lack the scientific rigor necessary for a wiki article. This clearly depends more on task and environment than patient history. What percentage can happily do math or interpret complex legal texts, while listening to smacking or a leaf blower? What percentage is unaffected while mopping the floor? Compare that to constant A/C or rain.
And this surely conflates individual trauma with generic human traits of focus, acoustic information processing and stress level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.54.191.94 ( talk) 12:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mysterymachine88,
Macbookcat05 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Radish1904 ( talk) 01:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Adding content from a systematic review and current perspectives of Misophonia. I plan to add content to the lead, signs and symptoms, epidemiology, society and culture, and management sections of the article. The information added contextualizes misophonia as it relates to societal health. Added information on how much misophonia effects people in the US. -- Mysterymachine88 ( talk) 21:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not being disingenuous, there is an untold number of people who are driven up the wall by guitar-playing, dog-having, baby-having, neighing neighbors. Hard to believe that hating someone's "chewing" sounds is originating from a different mechanism than that sinking feeling when you realize that your upstairs neighbors have once again decided to have a party on Monday night. 86.63.168.150 ( talk) 22:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)