A Consensus Definition of Misophonia: Using a Delphi Process to Reach Expert Agreement

Round 1

In Round 1, the MCC evaluated the definitional statements presented in the Round 1 Survey questions based on their expertise and the results of the literature review that were presented in a companion Round 1 Voting Guide. For each Round 1 question, the survey included three response options as well as an open-text comment box where the Committee could explain their thought processes, offer evidence or citations, or propose alternative wording even if they agreed with the premise of the statement.

In Round 1, the most common answer options included:

• Agree: selected if the statement should be included in the consensus definition, based on the available scientific evidence;

• Disagree: selected if the statement should not be included in the consensus definition, as written, based on the available scientific evidence; or

• Insufficient Information: selected if there was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not the statement should be included in the consensus definition.

On some questions, the Committee was asked whether a specific feature or characteristic was considered to be essential to misophonia or whether it varied in its occurrence. For these types of questions, the answer options were “Always,” “Sometimes,” or “Insufficient Information” with the open-text box option available as well.

A Round 1 Voting Guide accompanied the Round 1 Survey and included detailed information about the references identified in the literature review, including the original wording of definitional statements extracted from each reference. Both the survey and the voting guide – including the references − were organized by Primary Domain of Criteria. Because survey questions were often synthesized from definitional language that appeared in multiple references, it was not feasible to identify unique references for each individual survey question. However, references were identified for each Primary Domain and sub-themes for the Committee to refer to as they evaluated statements related to a broad definitional concept (such as auditory stimuli that may trigger symptoms of misophonia).

The 15 MCC members had three weeks to complete the Round 1 Survey. After three weeks, the response frequencies for each question were analyzed and the feedback provided in the Round 1 Survey comments was evaluated. An 80% agreement threshold (12 of 15 MCC members) was considered as consensus to either include the statement in the final definition, or exclude the statement from further consideration. Statements that did not meet consensus in Round 1 were re-evaluated in Round 2.

Round 2

In Round 2, the Committee re-evaluated the definitional statements that did not reach consensus in Round 1. The Committee based their Round 2 evaluation on their expertise, the results of the literature review, and the aggregated results and anonymized comments from Round 1 that were provided in a Round 2 Voting Guide. For most Round 2 questions, a question from Round 1 was revised based on MCC comments and presented in the Round 2 Survey as a choice between the original language that reached partial agreement and the revision. A third option – “None of the above/Insufficient evidence to include in the definition” – was also presented, as well as an open-text comment box. In other cases, multiple questions from Round 1 were condensed into a single multiple-choice question in Round 2.

The Round 2 Survey included three different formats of questions and responses that depended on the information under evaluation:

• Example Question 1: Please select the one option that you most agree with:

  • Example responses:

    • ▪ All original statements from Round 1

    • ▪ None of the above/Insufficient evidence to include in the definition

• Example Question 2: Please select the one option that you most agree with:

  • Example responses:

    • ▪ Original statement(s) from Round 1

    • ▪ Revised statement(s) that incorporated MCC feedback from Round 1

    • ▪ None of the above/Insufficient evidence to include in the definition

• Example Question 3: Please select the option(s) that you most agree with. You may select more than one option if you agree with them; however, if you feel that none fit, please select “none of the above.”

  • Example responses:

    • ▪ All original statements from Round 1

    • ▪ None of the above/Insufficient evidence to include in the definition

A Round 2 Voting Guide accompanied the survey and included information that the MCC used to evaluate Round 2 questions, including:

• Context for a batch of Round 2 questions and response options – the same information was available in the Round 2 Survey

• The Round 1 statement(s)/question(s) that contributed to a given Round 2 question

• Aggregated results for the relevant Round 1 question(s)

• Anonymized comments from MCC members on the relevant Round 1 question(s)

• Relevant references from the literature review for the Round 2 question

Voting guides were individually customized for each MCC member to indicate their votes and comments on the relevant Round 1 question(s).

The MCC again had three weeks to complete the survey. Response frequencies for each question were analyzed and the feedback provided in survey comments was reviewed. An 80% agreement threshold (12 of 15 MCC members) was considered as consensus to either include the statement in the definition or exclude the statement from further consideration. Select statements that did not meet consensus were re-evaluated in Round 3.

Round 3

By the conclusion of Rounds 1 and 2, the Committee had reached consensus on a sufficient number of statements and a draft of the definition was developed. At this point, statements that had met consensus to include in the definition were synthesized and written into prose for MCC review and feedback. Prior to the third round of voting, the MCC was provided with a Round 3 Voting Guide that included two drafts of the definition:

• Version 1 incorporated all statements that met consensus in Rounds 1 and 2;

• Version 2 included the same information as in Version 1 but with the addition and identification of statements that would be discussed and voted on in Round 3.

The statements identified for discussion and voting in Round 3 were selected because they were either close to reaching consensus in Round 2 (one or two votes shy) and/or MCC feedback indicated that they were integral or helpfully additive to the definition (e.g., examples of statements that met consensus to include in the definition).

The third round of voting was held in early January 2021 in a 2-hour virtual meeting. Thirteen of the 15 MCC members voted on all statements with a fourteenth member present for the first seven votes. The statements were considered one at a time and presented via PowerPoint slide with the surrounding paragraphs in which they were found in Version 2 of the draft definition. This approach allowed the Committee to evaluate each statement in context.

Prior to any discussion, a proposed definitional statement was presented, and the MCC voted via poll questions: “Yes” in support of its inclusion as presented in Version 2 of the definition and on the slide; or “No” to indicate further discussion or exclusion. If greater than 80% consensus was reached on this first vote, the floor was briefly held open for discussion before the statement was considered as “accepted” and the Committee moved to the next statement. If the first vote yielded less than 80% consensus, then the statement was discussed, potentially revised in real-time, and a second vote was held.

There were multiple outcomes for statements in the Round 3 vote:

Included in the final definition exactly as it was presented in Version 2 of the definition and discussed during the Round 3 meeting;

• Included after the language was revised based on Round 3 discussion;

• Included in principle with the MCC to revisit the phrasing, the statement’s location in the definition, or its integration with other parts of the definition in the next revision (Version 3) of the definition;

• Revised in Version 3 of the definition because the statement had MCC support but no consensus in Round 3 and the MCC agreed to revisit it;

• Excluded based on consensus reached by the MCC to exclude; or

• Excluded based on no consensus reached in Round 3 and a lack of MCC support to continue considering the statement.

Round 4

Although a 3-round Delphi process was initially planned, we elected to hold a fourth round of voting to finalize language on six statements that had MCC support but no final decision after the Round 3 meeting. The Round 4 Survey was managed through SurveyMonkey and accompanied by a Round 4 Voting Guide that reflected the discussion and vote outcomes from Round 3. This Round 4 Voting Guide also tracked how the statements that met consensus in Round 3 were incorporated into the revised draft definition (Version 3). In the 6-question Round 4 Survey, MCC members were presented with two answer choices that would determine the location of a concept in the definition (either Location A or B) or indicate their agreement/disagreement with specific phrasing. Feedback and/or proposed revisions were also encouraged via a comment box. The results from Round 4 were incorporated into the draft definition to arrive at the final version of the definition – Version 4.

Round 1

The Round 1 Survey included 199 questions that covered all 551 potential definitional statements identified in the systematic literature review. The survey covered 31 pages and was organized by the 12 Primary Domains or Criteria with secondary domains identified, when appropriate. Statements met consensus at 80% or more agreement (12/15 MCC members) to either include in the definition or exclude from further consideration. The results of Round 1 are illustrated in Figure 2.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Methodology and results of a modified Delphi method to develop a consensus definition of misophonia.

Through four rounds of evaluation and voting on potential definitional statements that were extracted from the published scientific literature, a committee of experts developed a consensus definition of misophonia.

Fifty-four statements met consensus in Round 1 to include in the definition by at least 80% of MCC members selecting the response option “Agree” or indicating that the statement was at least “Sometimes” seen in misophonia. These 54 statements covered 10 of the 12 Primary Domains of Criteria. While the Committee agreed to include these statements in the final definition, members provided minor feedback that was later incorporated as the first version of the definition was drafted.

Twelve statements were excluded from further consideration after Round 1 after having met one of three conditions:

• At least 80% of MCC members selected the response options “Disagree” or “Insufficient Information;”

• No MCC members agreed with the original statement (i.e. 0% “Agree”) with remaining responses split between the “Disagree” and “Insufficient Information” responses options. Comments from the Committee indicated that there was no support for the concept and that it was not worthwhile to reevaluate in Round 2.

• A minority of MCC members (three or fewer) agreed with the statement while a related or companion statement, such as one that presented the opposite concept or the same concept with different phrasing, reached consensus to include in the definition.

Statements that did not meet consensus in Round 1 were re-evaluated in Round 2; 133 statements met these criteria and MCC feedback on these statements was incorporated in revisions for the MCC to evaluate in a Round 2 Survey.

Round 2

The Round 2 Survey included 108 questions that were based on the 133 statements that did not meet consensus in Round 1. The survey covered 37 pages and was again organized by Primary Domain of Criteria with each survey page including context to frame the specific batch of questions under consideration. Statements again met consensus at 80% or more agreement (12/15 MCC members) to either include in the definition or exclude from further consideration. The results of Round 2 are illustrated in Figure 2.

Twenty-six statements met consensus in Round 2 to include in the definition and represented 9 of the 12 Primary Domains of Criteria. These 26 statements were combined with the 54 statements that met consensus in Round 1 for a total of 80 statements that met consensus to include in the definition after two rounds of voting. As in Round 1, MCC members provided feedback in Round 2 on statements that they thought should be included in the definition; this feedback was incorporated as the first version of the definition was drafted.

Twelve statements met consensus in Round 2 with 80% or more MCC agreement to exclude from the definition. Seventy statements did not reach consensus in Round 2 to either include or exclude from the definition. The MCC’s responses and feedback on these 70 statements was carefully evaluated and, to ensure the best use of the Committee’s effort in subsequent rounds of voting, 52 of these 70 statements were excluded from further consideration because they:

• had support from less than two-thirds of the Committee after two rounds of voting and MCC-suggested revisions; and/or

• were not considered to be integral to the final definition, based on MCC comments; and/or

• were redundant to other statements that had met consensus to either include in or exclude from the definition.

Nineteen of the 70 statements that did not reach at least 80% consensus in Round 2 were specifically identified for Round 3 discussion and voting because they:

• were two or fewer votes shy of reaching consensus in Round 2; and/or

• MCC feedback on these and other statements indicated that they were integral or helpfully additive to the definition (such as by serving as examples of statements that are included in the definition).

One of the Round 2 questions concerning emotional reactions included multiple response options that met consensus to include in the definition as well as one response that did not meet consensus but was considered to be worthy of discussion in Round 3. Therefore, this statement (Round 2, Question 39) counted as both one of the 26 statements to include in the definition after Round 2 as well as one of the 19 statements that would be discussed in Round 3.

Round 3 and Draft Versions 1 and 2 of the Misophonia Definition

By the conclusion of Rounds 1 and 2, 80 statements had reached consensus and a draft definition – Version 1 – was developed that incorporated these 80 statements and the feedback that the MCC provided on them in Rounds 1 and 2. A second definition draft – Version 2 – was simultaneously drafted that reflected all 80 consensus statements as well as the 19 statements that were pending discussion and voting in Round 3. The MCC was provided with both Versions 1 and 2 of the definition in their Round 3 Voting Guide to demonstrate that they had already reached consensus on a definition but that they may elect (or not) to supplement that definition with statements that they would consider in Round 3. The results of Round 3 are illustrated in Figure 2.

During the Round 3 meeting, held via Zoom, the MCC discussed and voted on 19 statements. These 19 statements were close to reaching consensus in Rounds 1 or 2 and/or the MCC’s comments indicated were important to the final definition. There were multiple outcomes for statements in the Round 3 vote:

• six statements: included in the final definition exactly as they were presented in Version 2 of the definition/during the Round 3 meeting;

• two statements: included after the language was revised based on Round 3 discussion;

• four statements: included in principle with the MCC to revisit the phrasing, the statements’ location in the definition, or their integration with other parts of the definition the next revision (Version 3) of the definition;

• two statements: revised in Version 3 of the definition with the MCC to revisit the revised language because the statements had MCC support but did not reach consensus in Round 3;

• one statement: excluded based on consensus reached by the MCC to exclude; and

• four statements: excluded based on no consensus reached in Round 3 and a lack of MCC support to continue considering the statements.

Round 4 and Draft Version 3 of the Misophonia Definition

After Round 3, 8 additional statements were incorporated into the misophonia definition to develop the next draft – Version 3. Six statements were identified during the Round 3 discussion as warranting follow-up consideration from the MCC to determine final phrasing or location in the definition; these six statements were evaluated in a Round 4 Survey. Any revisions that arose from the Round 4 Survey would be incorporated into the next draft of the definition – Version 4.

Fourteen MCC members voted on these six statements in the Round 4 Survey. Because the MCC had reached 80% or more agreement in Round 3 to include four of these six statements in the definition, a simple majority (50% or more) in Round 4 determined the outcome of these statements. The other two statements assessed in Round 4 had not yet reached consensus in Round 3 and thus the 80% threshold still applied.

The MCC’s Round 4 voting results surpassed the required thresholds for all six statements (i.e. 50% for four statements and 80% for the remaining two). However, comments from multiple MCC members on one of the six statements indicated that the concept was still confusing and may not be important for the definition. Therefore, although more than 50% of the MCC agreed with including this statement in the definition, the totality of feedback that the MCC shared in both the Round 3 discussion and on the Round 4 survey led to the conclusion that this specific statement should be eliminated from the definition.

After Round 4, 5 additional statements were integrated into the final draft of the definition – Version 4. This fourth and final version of the draft definition incorporates 93 individual definitional statements that have all met 80% or greater Committee consensus. The results of Round 4 are illustrated in Figure 2.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Misophonia is a disorder of decreased tolerance to specific sounds or stimuli associated with such sounds. These stimuli, known as “triggers,” are experienced as unpleasant or distressing and tend to evoke strong negative emotional, physiological, and behavioral responses that are not seen in most other people. Misophonic responses do not seem to be elicited by the loudness of auditory stimuli, but rather by the specific pattern or meaning to an individual. Trigger stimuli are often repetitive and primarily, but not exclusively, include stimuli generated by another individual, especially those produced by the human body. Once a trigger stimulus is detected, individuals with misophonia may have difficulty distracting themselves from the stimulus and may experience suffering, distress, and/or impairment in social, occupational, or academic functioning. The expression of misophonic symptoms varies, as does the severity, which ranges from mild to severe impairments. Some individuals with misophonia are aware that their reactions to misophonic trigger stimuli are disproportionate to the circumstances. Misophonia symptoms are typically first observed in childhood or early adolescence.

REACTIONS TO MISOPHONIC TRIGGERS

In response to specific trigger stimuli, individuals with misophonia may experience a range of negative affective reactions. Anger, irritation, disgust, and anxiety are most common, though some individuals may experience rage. Misophonic triggers may evoke increased autonomic arousal such as increased muscular tension, increased heart rate, and sweating.

Trigger stimuli may also evoke strong behavioral reactions such as agitation or aggression directed towards the individual producing the stimulus. On rare occasions, aggression may be expressed as verbal or physical outbursts although these responses are seen more in children with misophonia than in adults. Individuals with misophonia often engage in behaviors to mitigate their reactions to triggers such as: avoiding or escaping from situations in which they encounter trigger stimuli; seeking to discontinue the triggering stimuli; mimicking or reproducing the triggers.

INFLUENCES ON REACTIONS

The strength of an individual’s reaction to a misophonic trigger stimulus may be influenced by multiple factors including but not limited to: the context in which the stimulus is encountered; the individual’s perceived degree of control over the stimulus source; and the interpersonal relationship between the individual with misophonia and the source of the trigger. Self-generated stimuli typically do not evoke the same aversive responses as stimuli produced by other people.

FUNCTIONAL IMPAIRMENTS

Individuals’ reactions to misophonia triggers may cause significant distress, interfere with day-to-day life, and may contribute to mental health problems. Individuals with misophonia may experience functional impairments that range from mild to severe including but not limited to impaired occupational and/or academic functioning, concentration difficulties, and an inability to perform important work tasks. Individuals may also experience impaired social functioning, strained social relationships, and social isolation resulting from their misophonia symptoms.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CONDITIONS/DISORDERS

Misophonia can be present in people with or without normal hearing thresholds, and can occur alone or with the auditory conditions of tinnitus and hyperacusis. Misophonia can also occur with neurological or psychiatric conditions or disorders including but not limited to: anxiety disorders, mood disorders, personality disorders, obsessive compulsive related disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. For any given individual, the symptoms of misophonia should not be better explained by any co-occurring disorders.

MISOPHONIC TRIGGERS

Although each person may have their own pattern of triggers, some stimuli serve as common misophonic triggers. Auditory triggers are most common, although individuals with misophonia may also identify distress in response to visual triggers.

Sounds associated with oral functions are among the most often reported misophonic trigger stimuli, such as chewing, eating, smacking lips, slurping, coughing, throat clearing, and swallowing. Nasal sounds, such as breathing and sniffing, often serve as triggers as well. Auditory triggers may also include non-oral/nasal sounds produced by people such as pen clicking, keyboard typing, finger or foot tapping and shuffling footsteps, as well as sounds produced by objects, such as a clock ticking, or sounds generated by animals. Visual triggers have been reported to include stimuli such as cracking knuckles and jiggling or swinging legs, as well as visual stimuli associated with an auditory trigger, such as watching someone eat.

Broad Description of Misophonia

Misophonia has been broadly described in the literature as a condition (e.g. Edelstein et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2013; Jager et al., 2020), syndrome (e.g. Cavanna and Seri, 2015; Taylor, 2017; Brout et al., 2018), or disorder (e.g. Schröder et al., 2013; Baguley et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2017; Erfanian et al., 2019), and the Committee did not reach consensus until Round 4 to describe misophonia as a “disorder.” “Disorder” was ultimately determined to be a more accurate and useful descriptor than “condition” or “syndrome” for the purposes of the definition. The MCC felt that “disorder” correctly implicates the negative experience of individuals experiencing misophonia, can be useful in driving scientific inquiry to develop treatment models, and reinforces the professional and societal context around properly diagnosing, treating, and reimbursing care for misophonia. The Committee concluded that the scientific evidence regarding whether or not to classify misophonia as a “medical” (Cavanna and Seri, 2015) or “psychiatric” disorder (Schröder et al., 2013) is currently insufficient but that underlying organic etiology of the disorder cannot be ruled out. The Committee agreed that the available evidence did not support defining misophonia as a “reflex condition” (Dozier et al., 2017). Finally, although the name misophonia can be literally translated as “hatred of sound,” and is described this way in many publications, Committee members objected to including this translation in the definition as those with misophonia neither specifically feel hate nor do they necessary feel strong emotions only related to sound (i.e., some also have similar responses to visual triggers not associated with sounds, such as leg swinging).

Potential Mechanisms

The Committee agreed that the current literature did not yet support including language related to proposed biological, genetic, or behavioral mechanisms that may underlie misophonia. Whereas studies have postulated differential reactivity of different neural systems, such as those involved in emotional regulation, learning, and auditory processing (Jastreboff and Jastreboff, 2002; Jastreboff and Jastreboff, 2014; Schröder et al., 2017b), an understanding of the biological processes that underlie misophonia is currently under active investigation. The Committee concluded that postulated mechanisms do not belong in the definition at this time. Similarly, although a few case studies have identified multiple cases of misophonia within extended families (Cavanna, 2014; Sanchez and da Silva, 2018), the current available evidence does not support including language about a familial link to the disorder in the definition.

Prevalence, Onset, and Course

Multiple studies have estimated the prevalence of misophonia in different populations (Wu et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2017; Quek et al., 2018; Rouw and Erfanian, 2018; Jager et al., 2020; Naylor et al., 2020; Siepsiak et al., 2020b) by using different diagnostic questionnaires and measurement tools (Jastreboff and Jastreboff, 2002; Schröder et al., 2013; Bernstein et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2014; Rouw and Erfanian, 2018; Jager et al., 2020; Siepsiak et al., 2020a; Vitoratou et al., 2020). However, because these tools are based on different definitions for misophonia and most tools have not yet been psychometrically validated, the Committee agreed that it would be premature to include statements about the prevalence of misophonia in the consensus definition. Similarly, although the symptoms of misophonia are typically first observed/detected in childhood or early adolescence (Johnson et al., 2013; McGuire et al., 2015; Palumbo et al., 2018), the actual age of onset for the disorder is an area of active inquiry and the Committee determined that the consensus definition should not define the age of misophonia onset at this time. Finally, the Committee agreed that the available evidence does not yet support defining a “typical” course of misophonia over an individual’s lifetime – such as remaining stable or worsening – due to an absence of prospective and longitudinal studies.

Relationships to Other Conditions or Disorders

The Committee reached consensus to state that the symptoms of misophonia should not be better explained by auditory, psychological, and psychiatric disorders. However, Committee members felt that the etiology of misophonia and its relationships with other conditions are not yet clear and should not be included in the definition at this time. For example, the role of auditory functioning in misophonia is an area of active research and Committee members agreed that the definition should not include language regarding how misophonia specifically relates to hearing disorders. Similarly, ongoing research seeks to understand how misophonia relates to psychiatric disorders, as well as how misophonia may be influenced by psychological characteristics or individual personality factors. The field has not yet settled on these issues and Committee members agreed that it was not their role to make these determinations for the purposes of defining misophonia.