ArticlePloS one2025
Reassigning sources of misophonic trigger sounds to change their unpleasantness: Testing alternative mechanisms with a new set of movies, paintings, and words.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differential brain responses to affective sounds in misophonia and hyperacusis: A task-based fMRI approach.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- From Chewing to Chirping: The Misophonia Audiovisual Trigger Archive (MATA).Scientific data · 2026Article
- The Impact of Disgusting Sounds on Pupil Diameter of Misophonic and Non-Misophonic Listeners.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Visual disgust constricts pupils in response to misophonic movies.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted nine experiments to determine why a sound's pleasantness can be altered by movies, abstract paintings, and words. In Expt. 1, unpleasant sounds, such as the sound of a person sniffing, were paired either with their original video track or with video tracks depicting neutral events that could plausibly have produced the sound, such as pulling tissues out of a tissue box. While the unpleasant sounds were mildly unpleasant to an unscreened population, these sounds were expected to be more unpleasant for people who have misophonia, a condition in which certain everyday sounds are unbearable. Consistent with past literature, neutral video tracks increased the sounds' pleasantness for the non-misophonic and misophonic populations, by 0.98 and 1.59 points, respectively (on an 11-point scale). Movies rated as having better audio-visual matches produced greater changes in pleasantness, consistent with the hypothesis that source reassignment caused the changes. Expt. 2 found a consistent result when the video tracks were replaced with written event descriptions, although the effect size was reduced. Expt. 3 inverted Expt. 1 and found that unpleasant video tracks decreased the pleasantness of neutral sounds by 2.12 points, but better-matching movies did not produce greater changes in pleasantness. In Expts. 4-6, we sought an alternative to the source reassignment explanation by obtaining ratings of audio-visual synchrony, cross-modal agreement in symbolism, source plausibility, and sound identifiability. No complete explanation was found for the effect of unpleasant videos. Furthermore, pleasant abstract paintings increased the pleasantness of unpleasant sounds by 0.37 points, correlating with cross-modal agreement but not with audio-visual match. Taken together, different types and patterns of match ratings can help discern the causal mechanisms by which visual stimuli affect sound pleasantness (e.g., source reassignment, cross-modal agreement).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.