☯ These authors contributed equally to this work. ¤ Current address: Outpatient Clinic for Affective disorders, GGZ inGeest, Abstract Objective Analyze a large sample with detailed clinical data of misophonia subjects in order to determine the psychiatric, somatic and psychological nature of the condition. MethodsThis observational study of 779 subjects with suspected misophonia was conducted from January 2013 to May 2017 at the outpatient-clinic of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC, the Netherlands. We examined DSM-IV diagnoses, results of somatic examination (general screening and hearing tests), and 17 psychological questionnaires (e.g., SCL-90-R, WHOQoL). ResultsThe diagnosis of misophonia was confirmed in 575 of 779 referred subjects (74%). In the sample of misophonia subjects (mean age, 34.17 [SD = 12.22] years; 399 women [69%]), 148 (26%) subjects had comorbid traits of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, 58 (10%) mood disorders, 31 (5%) attention-deficit (hyperactivity) disorder, and 14 (3%) autism spectrum conditions. Two percent reported tinnitus and 1% hyperacusis. In a random subgroup of 109 subjects we performed audiometry, and found unilateral hearing loss in 3 of them (3%). Clinical neurological examination and additional blood test showed no abnormalities. Psychological tests revealed perfectionism (97% CPQ>25) and neuroticism (stanine 7 NEO-PI-R). Quality of life was heavily impaired and associated with misophonia severity (rs (184) = -.34 p = < .001, p = < .001). LimitationsThis was a single site study, leading to possible selection-and confirmation bias, since AMC-criteria were used.

Purpose The purpose of this study is the evaluation of post-operative hearing threshold after revision surgery and obliteration of troublesome canal wall down mastoidectomy cavities (CWDMCs). The ability to use and tolerate conventional hearing aids (CHAs) was also evaluated. Methods A retrospective chart analysis of 249 patients with chronically draining CWDMCs who underwent revision surgery including obliteration of the mastoid cavity between 2007 and 2017 at the AMC location of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers (Amsterdam UMC) was performed. Patient characteristics, pre- and post-operative Merchant grade, surgical outcomes, pre- and post-operative hearing thresholds, and the ability/necessity to use a CHA or the ability/necessity to use a Bone Conduction Device (BCD) were recorded. Results Dry ears were found in 95% of the total cohort. Residual disease was detected in 1.6% during MRI follow-up with no residual cholesteatoma in the obliterated area. In 3.2% of the patients, recurrent disease was found. A significant improvement in mean air conduction level, mean bone conduction level, and mean air-bone gap (ABG) was found post-operatively (p < 0.05). For all types of ossicular chain reconstruction, a significant improvement in mean Pure Tone Average was observed (p < 0.05). The percentage of patients with an indication for CHA was similar pre- and post-operatively (67% both pre- and post-operatively). The ability to use a CHA improved from 3% pre-operatively to 57% post-operatively (p < 0.001). Conclusion This study shows that revision surgery and obliteration of CWDMCs enable successful CHA rehabilitation post-operatively. Upon this type of surgery, hearing thresholds improve significantly, but the need for rehabilitation with a CHA remains necessary in most cases.

Objectives: We examined the influence of impaired processing (audibility and suprathreshold processes) on speech recognition in cases of sensorineural hearing loss. The influence of differences in central, or top-down, processing was reduced by comparing the performance of both ears in participants with a unilateral hearing loss (UHL). We examined the influence of reduced audibility and suprathreshold deficits on speech recognition in quiet and in noise. Design: We measured speech recognition in quiet and stationary speech-shaped noise with consonant–vowel–consonant words and digital triplets in groups of adults with UHL (n = 19), normal hearing (n = 15), and bilateral hearing loss (n = 9). By comparing the scores of the unaffected ear (UHL+) and the affected ear (UHL−) in the UHL group, we were able to isolate the influence of peripheral hearing loss from individual top-down factors such as cognition, linguistic skills, age, and sex. Results: Audibility is a very strong predictor for speech recognition in quiet. Audibility has a less pronounced influence on speech recognition in noise. We found that, for the current sample of listeners, more speech information is required for UHL− than for UHL+ to achieve the same performance. For digit triplets at 80 dBA, the speech recognition threshold in noise (SRT) for UHL− is on average 5.2 dB signal to noise ratio (SNR) poorer than UHL+. Analysis using the speech intelligibility index (SII) indicates that on average 2.1 dB SNR of this decrease can be attributed to suprathreshold deficits and 3.1 dB SNR to audibility. Furthermore, scores for speech recognition in quiet and in noise for UHL+ are comparable to those of normal-hearing listeners. Conclusions: Our data showed that suprathreshold deficits in addition to audibility play a considerable role in speech recognition in noise even at intensities well above hearing threshold.