Close
today i learned (til)

Misophonia: The Unofficial Common Neurobehavioral Disorder

November 14, 2025

For sure most people have already experienced some ‘disliking’ sounds before. For example, the emergency sirens, high-pitched yellings, public space noises, etc. What’s about daily life sounds? From the snoring, sniffling, heavy breathing, a few people might be triggered into intense negative emotion such as rage or disgust (Salamon, 2023). This is a sign of misophonia.

What is Misophonia? 

According to Kumar et al (2021), “misophonia is a common disorder characterized by the experience of strong negative emotions of anger and anxiety in response to certain everyday sounds” (para. 1). Most of the known triggers for misophonia are human-orofacial actions such as eating and chewing, including images and silent videos (Kumar et al, 2021). 

Patients and causes

The cause of misophonia remains unknown, but an experiment with 15 members of the same family suggests a possible hereditary factor (Sanchez & Silva 2017). These 15 Caucasians with misophonia span across 3 generations, with more than half being women. The younger generations reported to have misophonia earlier than their parents, with the youngest starting at age 2. Surprisingly, 80% of the women with misophonia have all of their children also diagnosed with misophonia, suggesting this is a genetic disorder. According to a study published in 2023 by journal PLOS One, nearly one out of five adults experience similar conditions, with women responding more intensely than men (Salamon, 2023).

A separate research focusing more on severe cases of misophonia suggest that the disorder involves brain regions, including the mirror neuron system, orofacial motor area, and both auditory and visual cortex. These areas seem to respond to sensory stimulation associated with the production of trigger sounds, potentially causing the patients to unknowingly mirror the perceived action (Kumar et al, 2021). The study further suggests that extreme negative reactions occur in misophonia possibly due to a sense of loss of control, invasion of personal space, or interference with current goals and actions. Kumar et al (2021) also highlight that automatic mimicry of eating behavior is commonly learned within families since young age, which may explain why a family member usually becomes the initial source of sound triggers developing misophonia. This finding is consistent with Sanchez and Silva’s study (2017), where younger generations tend to experience misophonia earlier than their parents – suggesting environmental factors contribute to the disorder.

According to Cleveland Clinic, a worldwide nonprofit academic medical center and healthcare provider, about 50%-80% of reported misophonia patients are women (Cleveland Clinic, n.d.) The information page suggests brain structure differences, family history or genetics are causes of the disorder. 

Cure and Prevention

Even though most people reported that misophonia has zero to minimal effect on their life (Sanchez & Silva 2017), many might encounter daily life struggles as residents in busy areas. There are people who cannot eat out at restaurants due to the eating noises, feeling uncomfortable in dark spaces which enhance hearing functions like in movie theater, etc – in some cases, misophonia can become socially impairing (Salamon, 2023). For the few severe situations, body reactions can include blood pressure increases, chest pressure or tightness, goosebumps, heart rate increases, or sweating (Cleveland Clinic, n.d.). As misophonia is a lifelong condition, it could worsen or introduce chronic diseases.

Unfortunately, as the exact sources and causes of misophonia remain uncertain, there is no exact cure for it and therefore it is not officially recognized as a medical condition (Cleveland Clinic, n.d.). Many patients are able to manage the condition using sound aversion methods like wearing earplugs or headphones, listening to white noise, practicing deep breath or muscle relaxation (Salamon, 2023). 

It’s very important to not criticize behavioral symptoms (Salamon, 2023) as chances are that they are experiencing some medical conditions. Much of the older generation lived with misophonia all their life without getting treatment. Sadly, they resist going to doctors because of the stigma surrounding mental disorders. Although misophonia is still an unofficial disorder, many experts recognize the patterns. If you ever encounter someone potentially experiencing misophonia and thinking they have gone mad, it would be nice to tell them about the disorder, and suggest ways to manage the condition in daily life.  

References

  • Kumar, S., Dheerendra, P., Erfanian, M., Benzaquén, E., Sedley, W., Gander, P. E., Lad, M., Bamiou, D. E., & Griffiths, T. D. (2021). The motor basis for Misophonia. The Journal of Neuroscience, 41(26), 5762–5770. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0261-21.2021 
  • Misophonia: What it is, triggers, symptoms & treatment. Cleveland Clinic. (n.d.). https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24460-misophonia
  • Salamon, M. (2023, September 1). When everyday noises upset you. Harvard Health. https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/when-everyday-noises-upset-you 
  • Sanchez, T. G., & Silva, F. E. (2018). Familial misophonia or selective sound sensitivity syndrome : Evidence for autosomal dominant inheritance? Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 84(5), 553–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.06.014 
0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Fast Fashion vs Environment
today i learned (til)
AI’s Attempt at New Yorker Cartoons
today i learned (til)
Atlanta’s growth is Hurting the Environment
today i learned (til)
How Nature can Influence Innovation and Design

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.