Objective This comparative cross-sectional study aimed to characterize individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) in self-perception of pain sensitivity, experimental auditory aversiveness, and non-noxious sensory responsiveness, as well as examine the associations with SUD. Methods Therapeutic community (TC) individuals with SUD (N = 63, male 88.9%) and healthy controls (N = 60, male 86.7%) completed the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ) and the Sensory Responsiveness Questionnaire–Intensity Scale (SRQ-IS), followed by a psychophysical auditory battery, the Battery of Averseness to Sounds (BAS)–Revised. Results The SUD group scored higher on the PSQ (P < 0.0001), BAS-R aversiveness (P < 0.0001), BAS-R-unpleasantness (P < 0.0001), and on the aftersensation of auditory aversiveness (P < 0.0001) and unpleasantness (P < 0.000). Fifty-four percent of the SUD group vs 11.7% of the control group were identified as having sensory modulation dysfunction (SMD; P < 0.0001). Logistic regression modeling revealed that the SRQ-IS-Aversive score had a stronger relationship, indicating a 12.6-times odds ratio for SUD (P = 0.0002). Finally, a risk score calculated from a linear combination of the logistic regression model parameters is presented based on the PSQ and SRQ. Conclusions This is the first study to explore sensory and aversive domains using experimental and self-reporting in situ, revealing pain perception alteration that co-occurs with high prevalence of SMD, specifically of the over-responsive type. Findings may be significant in clinical practice for treating pain, and for expanding therapeutic modalities as part of broader rehabilitation in TC and beyond, to better meet personalized therapy.

Listening effort (LE) has been known to characterize speech recognition in noise regardless of hearing sensitivity and age. Whereas the behavioral measure of dual-task paradigm effectively manifests the cognitive cost that listeners exert when processing speech in background noise, there is no consensus as to a clinical procedure that might best express LE. In order to assess the cognitive load underlying speech recognition in noise and promote counselling for coping strategies, a feasible clinical paradigm is warranted. The ecological validity of such a paradigm might best be demonstrated in middle-aged adults, exhibiting intact hearing sensitivity on one hand, however, experiencing difficulties in degraded listening conditions, unaware of the implicated cognitive cost of speech recognition in noise. To this end, we constructed a dual-task paradigm that consists of a primary task of sentences-in-noise recognition and a secondary task of simple visual colored-shape matching. Research objective was to develop a clinical paradigm for the assessment of LE in middle-aged adults. Participants were 17 middle-aged adults (mean age of 52.81 years) and 23 young adults (mean age of 24.90 years). All participants had normal hearing according to age. Speech stimuli consisted of the Hebrew Matrix sentences in noise test. SRTn was obtained for 80% correct identification. Visual stimuli were colored geometric shapes. Outcome measures were obtained initially for each task separately, to establish performance ability, and then obtained simultaneously. Reaction time and accuracy in the secondary task were the defined metrics for LE. Results: LE was indicated for both groups, however, was more pronounced in the middle-aged, manifested in the visual accuracy and reaction time metrics. Both groups maintained the 80% correct recognition-in-noise in the dual-task, however, the middle-aged group necessitated a better SNR of 1.4dB than the normal hearing group. Moreover, the middle-aged group was taxed in a greater prolongation of reaction time, in order to uphold the correct recognition. Conclusion: a dual-task paradigm consisting of sentences-in-noise primary task combined with a simple secondary task successfully showed different manifestations of LE in middle-aged adults compared to young adults, thus approximating the use of such a paradigm in a clinical setting.

IntroductionMisophonia and sensory over-responsiveness (SOR) share physiological and psychological symptoms. While individuals with SOR demonstrate pain perception alterations, these were not explored in misophonia.MethodsThis exploratory study comprised thirty healthy adults with (n = 15; based on the Misophonia Questionnaire) and without misophonia. The Sensory Responsiveness Questionnaire (SRQ) was used for evaluating sensory responsiveness. In addition, psychophysical tests were applied for quantification of: (i) stimulus-response function of painful stimuli, (ii) the individual perceived pain intensity, (iii) pain modulation efficiency, (iv) auditory intensity discrimination capability, and (v) painful and unpleasantness responses to six ecological daily sounds using the Battery of Aversiveness to Sounds (BAS).ResultsIndividuals with misophonia reported higher scores in the SRQ-Aversive (p = 0.022) and SRQ-Hedonic (p = 0.029) scales as well as in auditory (p = 0.042) and smell (p = 0.006) sub-scales, indicating higher sensory responsiveness. Yet they were not identified with the SOR type of sensory modulation dysfunction. Groups did not differ in the pain psychophysical tests, and in auditory discrimination test scores (p &gt; 0.05). However, in the misophonia group the BAS evoked higher pain intensity (p = 0.046) and unpleasantness (p &lt;0.001) ratings in the apple biting sound, and higher unpleasantness rating in the scraping a dish sound (p = 0.007), compared to the comparison group.ConclusionFindings indicate increased sensory responsiveness in individuals with misophonia, yet not defined as SOR. Thus, this suggests that misophonia and SOR are two distinct conditions, differing in their behavioral responses to painful and non-painful stimuli.

Many women with silicone breast implants (SBIs) report non-specific complaints, including hearing impairments. Hearing impairment appears to be associated with a number of autoimmune conditions. The current study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and severity of hearing impairments among women with SBIs and to explore potential improvements in their hearing capability following implant removal. Symptomatic women with SBIs (n = 160) underwent an initial anamnestic interview, and women who reported hearing impairments were selected for the study. These women completed self-report telephone questionnaires regarding their hearing difficulties. Some of these women underwent subjective and objective hearing tests. Out of 159 (50.3%) symptomatic women with SBIs, 80 reported hearing impairments, including hearing loss (44/80; 55%) and tinnitus (45/80; 56.2%). Five out of seven (71.4%) women who underwent an audiologic evaluation exhibited hearing loss. Of women who underwent silicone implant removal, 27 out of 47 (57.4%) reported the improvement or resolution of their hearing complaints. In conclusion, hearing impairment is a frequent complaint among symptomatic women with SBIs, and tinnitus was found to be the most common complaint. A significant reduction in hearing difficulties was observed following silicone implant removal. Further studies using larger populations are needed to verify the occurrence of hearing impairments in these women.