Bibliographic record
Abstract
Misophonia is a disorder in which specific common sounds such as another person breathing or chewing, or the ticking of a clock, cause an atypical negative emotional response. Affected individuals may experience anger, irritability, annoyance, disgust, and anxiety, as well as physiological autonomic responses, and may find everyday environments and contexts to be unbearable in which their 'misophonic stimuli' (often called 'trigger sounds') are present. Misophonia is gradually being recognized as a genuine problem that causes significant distress and has negative consequences for individuals and their families. It has only recently come under scientific scrutiny, as researchers and clinicians are establishing its prevalence, distinguishing it from other disorders of sensory sensitivity such as hyperacusis, establishing its neurobiological bases, and evaluating the effectiveness of potential treatments. While ideas abound as to the mechanisms involved in misophonia, few have coalesced into models. The aim of the present work is to summarize and extend recent thinking on the mechanistic basis of misophonia, with a focus on moving towards neurologically-informed cognitive models that can (a) account for extant findings, and (b) generate testable predictions. We hope this work will facilitate future refinements in our understanding of misophonia, and ultimately inform treatments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".