Misophonia Diagnosis: Understanding and Identifying Selective Sound Sensitivity

Introduction

Misophonia, often described as “hatred of sound,” is a condition characterized by an intense aversion to specific sounds, particularly those produced by humans. Unlike general sound sensitivities or phobias, misophonia triggers a cascade of negative emotions, predominantly anger, disgust, and a powerful urge for impulsive aggression. Individuals with misophonia find themselves preoccupied with these trigger sounds, leading to significant distress, social avoidance, and a diminished quality of life. Despite affecting a notable portion of the population, misophonia remains a relatively under-recognized and poorly understood condition within the medical and psychiatric fields. Current diagnostic systems like the DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 do not officially classify misophonia as a distinct disorder, leaving clinicians and sufferers without a clear framework for diagnosis and treatment.

This article delves into the symptomatology of misophonia, drawing upon a study of 42 patients who presented with this unique sound sensitivity. It aims to clarify the clinical features of misophonia, differentiate it from other related disorders, and propose diagnostic criteria to facilitate better identification and encourage further research into this debilitating condition. By establishing a clearer understanding of Misophonia Diagnosis, we can pave the way for improved recognition, support, and effective interventions for individuals struggling with this often-isolating disorder.

Methods: Clinical Assessment and Patient Cohort

To comprehensively understand misophonia, a study was conducted involving 42 patients who were recruited through a hospital website and a Dutch misophonia internet newsgroup. These individuals reported experiencing significant distress related to specific sounds. Each participant underwent a thorough clinical assessment by experienced psychiatrists specializing in obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders. The assessment included a detailed psychiatric interview to gather general medical and psychiatric history, alongside the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) to evaluate personality pathology.

To quantify and qualify the patients’ symptoms and associated conditions, several standardized questionnaires were administered:

Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D): This 17-item scale measured the level of depressive symptoms in each patient.
Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A): A 14-item scale used to assess the severity of anxiety symptoms.
Symptom Checklist (SCL-90): This 90-item questionnaire served as a broad screening tool for mental and physical dysfunction, covering subscales like anxiety, depression, hostility, and somatic complaints.

To specifically assess the severity of misophonia symptoms, the researchers developed the Amsterdam Misophonia Scale (A-MISO-S). This scale was adapted from the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), a recognized tool for measuring symptom severity in obsessive-compulsive and impulse control disorders. The A-MISO-S is a 6-item scale evaluating:

Time spent preoccupied with misophonia.
Interference with social functioning.
Level of anger associated with trigger sounds.
Resistance against impulsive reactions.
Control over thoughts and anger.
Time spent avoiding misophonic situations.

Scores on the A-MISO-S ranged from subclinical to extreme misophonic symptoms, providing a quantitative measure of the condition’s impact on patients’ lives.

Furthermore, to rule out underlying audiological issues, a subset of five patients underwent standard hearing tests, including pure tone and speech audiometry. This was crucial to ensure that the reported sound sensitivities were not attributable to general hearing distortions or loss.

This rigorous methodological approach, combining clinical interviews, standardized questionnaires, and audiological assessments, allowed for a detailed examination of the clinical characteristics of misophonia and provided a strong foundation for proposing diagnostic criteria.

Results: Unveiling the Core Symptoms of Misophonia

The analysis of the 42 patients revealed a remarkably consistent symptom pattern, highlighting the distinct nature of misophonia. Key findings from the study include:

Trigger Specificity: The sounds that triggered misophonic reactions were almost exclusively human-produced sounds. Animal noises or sounds made by the patients themselves rarely caused distress. Eating-related sounds were the most common triggers (81%), followed by breathing/nose sounds (64.3%), and finger/hand sounds like typing or pen clicking (59.5%).
Sensory Expansion: While initially auditory, triggers could expand to include visual stimuli directly related to the sound. For instance, seeing someone eat could trigger a reaction similar to hearing eating sounds. A subset of patients (11.9%) also reported misophonia-like reactions to repetitive visual movements, termed “misokinesia,” such as leg rocking.
Emotional Cascade: Exposure to a trigger sound initiated an immediate physical reaction, starting with irritation (59.5%) or disgust (40.5%) that rapidly escalated into intense anger. A significant portion of patients reported verbal aggression (28.6%), aggression towards objects (16.7%), and in a few cases, physical aggression towards others (11.9%). Notably, anxiety was explicitly reported as absent during these reactions.
Loss of Control: The intensity of anger and the potential for aggressive outbursts led to a profound sense of losing self-control, which was a significant source of distress for patients.
Insight and Moral Conflict: Patients recognized their aggressive reactions as excessive and unreasonable, leading to moral conflict and further distress about their perceived lack of control.
Avoidance and Social Impact: To manage their symptoms, all patients engaged in active avoidance strategies, such as avoiding social situations, wearing headphones, or creating “anti-sounds” to mask triggers. This avoidance significantly limited their social interactions and contributed to social dysfunction.
Anticipatory Stress: Constant anticipation of encountering trigger sounds led to daily stress and discomfort, further impacting their overall well-being.
Symptom Severity: Scores on the A-MISO-S indicated severe misophonia symptoms, with a mean score of 15.1 out of 24.
Comorbidity and Personality Traits: While comorbid mood disorders were relatively infrequent (7.1%), depressive and anxiety symptoms were elevated compared to the general population. A notable finding was the high prevalence of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD), with 52.4% of patients meeting the criteria.

These results paint a clear picture of misophonia as a distinct syndrome characterized by specific triggers, a unique emotional profile dominated by anger, and significant behavioral and social consequences.

Discussion: Differentiating Misophonia and Defining Diagnostic Criteria

The consistent symptom pattern observed in the study strongly suggests that misophonia is a discrete clinical entity, despite its absence from current psychiatric classifications. While misophonia shares some features with other disorders, a closer examination reveals key distinctions.

Misophonia vs. Other Disorders:

Specific Phobia: While both can involve external stimuli triggering negative reactions and avoidance, specific phobia is characterized by anxiety, whereas misophonia is defined by anger and aggression.
PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder): PTSD can also involve acoustic triggers and aversion, but it stems from a life-threatening traumatic event, and the primary emotion is fear, not aggression.
Social Phobia: Both conditions can lead to social avoidance, but in social phobia, the core issue is fear of negative evaluation, while in misophonia, avoidance is driven by the need to escape trigger sounds.
OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder): Misophonia shares the obsessive preoccupation with specific sounds and avoidance behaviors with OCD. However, OCD is typically characterized by compulsions to reduce anxiety, and aggression is not a primary symptom.
Intermittent Explosive Disorder: While both involve impulsive aggression, intermittent explosive disorder is characterized by generalized aggression, whereas in misophonia, aggression is specifically linked to trigger sounds and is often actively suppressed due to moral concerns.
Personality Disorders with Impulsive Aggression: Conditions like borderline or antisocial personality disorder involve impulsive aggression, but it is not tied to specific sounds, unlike misophonia. Furthermore, patients in the study did not meet criteria for these personality disorders, except for OCPD.
OCPD (Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder): The high comorbidity with OCPD raises questions about the relationship between these conditions. It’s unclear if OCPD predisposes to misophonia or if it develops as a coping mechanism. However, aggression is not a core symptom of OCPD, and misophonia patients primarily suffer from their sound sensitivity, not necessarily their OCPD traits.
ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) and SPD (Sensory Processing Disorder): Auditory hypersensitivity is seen in ASD and SPD, but it typically involves sensitivity to loud or unexpected noises, unlike the specific human-produced trigger sounds in misophonia. None of the study participants were diagnosed with ASD.
Phonophobia (Fear of Sound): While phonophobia involves a strong emotional reaction to sound, the primary emotion is fear or anxiety, contrasting with the anger and aggression central to misophonia.

Proposed Diagnostic Criteria for Misophonia:

Based on these findings and the distinct symptom profile, the researchers proposed a set of diagnostic criteria for misophonia, aiming to provide a framework for clinical identification and research:

These criteria emphasize the core features of misophonia: the specific sound triggers, the immediate anger response, the sense of lost control, the recognition of the reaction as unreasonable, avoidance behavior, significant distress or functional impairment, and the exclusion of other disorders as better explanations.

The Amsterdam Misophonia Scale (A-MISO-S): A Tool for Assessment

To further aid in misophonia diagnosis and research, the Amsterdam Misophonia Scale (A-MISO-S) was developed. This scale, adapted from the Y-BOCS, provides a structured method for quantifying the severity of misophonia symptoms. The A-MISO-S questionnaire (available in Supporting Information Figure S1) assesses key aspects of the condition, offering a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers to measure symptom severity and track treatment progress.

Conclusion: Towards Recognition and Further Research

This study provides compelling evidence for misophonia as a distinct and clinically significant psychiatric disorder. The consistent symptom pattern observed in a cohort of 42 patients highlights the unique nature of this sound sensitivity, characterized by specific human-produced sound triggers, an immediate anger and aggression response, and significant functional impairment. Misophonia cannot be adequately classified within existing DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10 categories, underscoring the need for its recognition as a separate diagnostic entity.

The proposed diagnostic criteria and the A-MISO-S scale represent crucial steps towards formalizing misophonia diagnosis. These tools can empower healthcare professionals to better identify and understand patients with misophonia, leading to improved clinical care and support. Furthermore, the establishment of diagnostic criteria will encourage and facilitate much-needed scientific research into the underlying mechanisms, etiology, and effective treatments for misophonia. Future research should focus on validating these proposed criteria in larger and more diverse populations, exploring potential neurobiological correlates, and developing evidence-based interventions to alleviate the suffering associated with this often-debilitating condition. Recognizing misophonia and advancing research in this area is essential to improve the lives of individuals affected by this selective sound sensitivity.

Supporting Information

Figure S1 Amsterdam Misophonia Scale (A-MISO-S).

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file. (2.9MB, tiff)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the patients for their contribution. We thank Carl Stevenson for carefully correcting our English. We also thank Pelle de Koning, Martijn Figee and all the others working at the AMC department of anxiety disorders and the department of clinical and experimental audiology for their support.

Funding Statement

The authors have no support or funding to report.

References

1.Jastreboff PJ (2000) Tinnitus Habituation Therapy (THT) and Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT). In: Tyler RS, editor. Tinnitus Handbook. San Diego: Singular, Thomson Learning. 357–376.
1. Hadjipavlou G, Baer S, Lau A, Howard A (2008) Selective sound intolerance and emotional distress: what every clinician should hear. Psychosom Med 70(6): 739–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
1. Schwartz P, Leyendecker J, Conlon M (2011) Hyperacusis and misophonia: the lesser-known siblings of tinnitus. Minn Med 94(11): 42–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) Washington, DC: Author.
5.World Health Organization (1994) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10) Geneva: World Health Organization.
6.First MB, Gibbon M, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Benjamin LS (1997) Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press Inc.
1. Hamilton M (1960) A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 23: 56–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
1. Hamilton M (1959) The assessment of anxiety states by rating. Br J Med Psychol 32: 50–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
1. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Covi L (1973) The SCL-90: An outpatient psychiatric rating scale – Preliminary report. Psychopharmacol Bull 9: 13–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
1. Goodman WK, Price LH, Rasmussen SA, Mazure C, Fleischmann RL, et al. (1989) The Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. I. Development, use, and reliability. Arch Gen Psychiatry 46: 1006–1011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
1. Goodman WK, Price LH, Rasmussen SA, Mazure C, Delgado P, et al. (1989) The Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. II. Validity. Arch Gen Psychiatry 46: 1012–1016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
1. Pallanti S, DeCaria CM, Grant JE, Urpe M, Hollander E (2005) Reliability and validity of the pathological gambling adaptation of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (PG-YBOCS). J Gambl Stud. 21(4): 431–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
1. Philips KA, Hollander E, Rasmussen SA, Aronowitz BR, DeCaria C, et al. (1997) A severity rating scale for body dysmorphic disorder: development, reliability, and validity of a modified version of the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. Psychopharmacol Bull. 33 (1): 17–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Schlauch RS, Nelson P (2009) Puretone Evaluation. In: Katz J, editor. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 30–49.
15.McArdle R, Hnath-Chisolm T (2009) Speech Audiometry, In: Katz J, editor. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 64–79.
16.Marks IM (1987) Fears, Phobias, and Rituals. Panic, Anxiety, and Their Disorders. New York: Oxford University Press. 396–9.
17.McElroy SL (1999) Recognition and treatment of DSM IV intermittent explosive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry (Suppl 15): 12–16. [PubMed]
1. Villemarette-Pittman NR, Houston RJ, Mathias CW (2004) Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder and Behavorial Disinhibition. J Psychol 138(1): 5–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
1. Rogers SJ, Ozonoff S (2005) Annotation: What do we know about sensory dysfunction in autism? A critical review of the empirical evidence. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 46(12): 1255–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Ben-Sasson A, Hen L, Fluss R, Cermak SA, Engel-Yeger B, et al.. (2009) A Meta-Analysis of Sensory Modulation Symptoms in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders. J Autism Dev Disord (39) 1–11. [DOI] [PubMed]
21.Dunn W (1999) The Sensory Profile: Examiner’s manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
1. Jastreboff PJ, Hazel JWP (1993) A neurophysiological approach to tinnitus. Clinical implications. Br J Audiol 27(1): 7–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
1. LeDoux (2000) Emotion circuits in the brain. Annu Rev Neurosci (23): 155–184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Hollander E, Wong CM (1995) Obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders. J Clin Psychiatry (suppl 4): 3–6. [PubMed]