Talk:ASMR/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Quotations

Right now I think the article suffers from too many quotations (see WP:LONGQUOTE). Consider converting most of it into prose? Biosthmors (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I took out a couple of the long quotes, currently there are two remaining. They could both be turned into prose but I think they add value to the topic in both the difficulty of defining the sensation and relating it to a historical perspective of social interaction by mentioning primates.DevonJamesKing (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Third-party sources only

I see that someone linked to a website called soothetube. Let's keep links to these sorts of websites to an absolute minimum. Published news articles and other more credible third party sources only please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Black (talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 December 2012‎ UTC

Fixed for now. Biosthmors (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

This article should follow WP:LEAD, as all articles here should. Biosthmors (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"type A" and "type B"

WP:SCIRS is a useful essay. WP:MEDRS is a useful guideline. If the current lead is not an accurate summary of the article, then it can be changed. We can easily say the claimed effect is X. That's encyclopedic. Once one starts introducing "type A" and "type B" for a claimed biological phenomenon X, I think we risk getting into pseudoscience. Biosthmors (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How about modifying the description to say "in response to various visual, auditory and cognitive stimuli" to account for the "typeA/B" descriptions and the mentioning in several sources (I would need to find these first) that individuals can evoke ASMR simply from thinking about something, such as a memory or an imagined event?DevonJamesKing (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Somebody added this type A/B part again but referenced to the ASMR Research & Support website this time. Wasn't sure whether to leave it or delete. But leaving it in the external references might be a good idea, especially if Soothetube is allowed to stay there.DevonJamesKing (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We should use WP:PRIMARY sources with care, so I couldn't cite that website for that claim. Biosthmors (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

'Claimed'

The term 'claimed' is highly contentious, and I could swear it wasn't there a couple of days ago (I haven't bothered looking through the edit logs). The acronym is debatable, the effect is not, it is quite a real thing and consistenty reproducable - but only amongst those who experience it. Going by the number of ASMR videos on youtube, and the fact that collection has been building up over the last at least 3 years, thats quite a big number of experiencees too. 118.209.125.245 (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was added towards the end of February, but for good reason. So far, there has been no research done on this phenomenon, and at this point, it *is* claimed that it is a separate, unique thing. Researchers will perhaps discover it is entirely within the field of another neuro thing, or will find it is its own entity, at which point the "claimed" can be removed. But, until that time, it is best that it stays. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Using the term "claimed" avoids the risk of stating that the definition of ASMR is a proven fact. Since there's no evidence that it's an actual biological phenomenon, nobody knows for sure. One of the reasons this article was deleted in the past was because it was being defined as a confirmed fact without any supporting scientific evidence. DevonJamesKing (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit

This article lacks any scientific background. The phenomenom should be documented here as a mere sensation produced by certain stimuli which some people experience. Period. I myself have such feeling; it's been called goosebumps, chills or other terms for ages, until someone came with the fake acronym ASMR. There is no meridian response or anything like that ever studied. ASMR is just the most inaccurate term for the "tingly feeling". Just because a lot of people on Youtube use it nowadays, it doesn't mean Wikipedia should give any credit to it. Apart from that, the article entry has been removed in the past from Wikipedia. By which standards was the article removed and drawn back online? The section on the origins of the term is just filled with junk. The Youtube ASMR/Relaxation phenomenom started in 2008, and by that time the term ASMR was already being used in Youtube videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyp3m-kD6GU). I believe the word was coined somewhere else, but I can't prove it. Media coverage should be named "media coverage of youtube phenomenom", as the tingly feeling is not the main point focused, but the tremendous amount of videos posted daily on Youtube to trigger this sensation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.122.177.239 (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what word is used to describe it, I can assure you that the sensation being described in this article is 'not' the same sensation one experiences when getting the goosebumps. I - like everyone else - get the goosebumps. Personally I perceive the goosebumps as being (usually) unpleasant, however ASMR (or whatever you want to call it) is very pleasurable and calming, however in no sexual way - as the article mentions. There are probably many people who mistake their goosebump/spine tingling to be ASMR, and so inaccurately describe it. I realize there is no reason for anyone to take my word for it, but I have no reason to lie when I say that I am able to self-induce (through concentration) ASMR responses. If we forget about the word for a moment and just describe the feeling, it is a feeling which starts in the head and quickly moves down the spine and - if it is a good one - it will expand throughout the entire body into the fingers and toes. Music usually stimulates this response in me, making it easier to create more powerful responses, however I can 'make them happen' whenever I want. Interestingly, however, they seem to 'dry up', as in I can make them occur over and over, but my body becomes immune to the stimulation after 4-6 occurrences. When this happens, I must either use music and concentrate on something significant to me (like a powerful memory, good or bad) and, in doing so, I may be able to have 1 or 2 more sensations.

Anyway... if you don't want to believe me, that's up to you. Personally I do not care, but I find it odd that there seems to be so much contention over this issue. Given enough time, scientists will eventually verify what I'm saying here, and it will be no big deal. It's not like we're mutants or something... it could be some kind of weird throwback sensation from when we were more ape-like. It does not drastically change my life, and the only thing I 'use' the ability for is stress relief and/or just to have a nice feeling.

To recap: ASMR (as I understand it) is NOT goosebumps or spine tingles. It has nothing to do with cold weather, or being afraid / feeling like you're being watched. I get those feelings to, and they are not the same, nor are they enjoyable. Whatever it really is, it is a physiological sensation. It is not spiritual like I see many people saying, nor is it 'psychic'. We live in the real world, dominated COMPLETELY by physics. What occurs is real, however that does not make it magical. Too many people want this to be some kind of special power, and I sympathize with the annoyance others experience towards that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.104.228 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not spine tingles? I don't know what "spine tingles" are, but I would consider the response I get from ASMR videos to be sudden and swift feeling of a pleasing tingling all over my body. I would say it's accurate to say it feels like it starts in the head and goes to the rest of the body. I have gotten goosebumps from it before. Maybe I'm experiencing something different than others, but I sincerely doubt it as the sensation I get from the videos is extremely similar to many peoples' accounts of it, but I could very well refer to it as "spine tingles" as much as a "braingasm." My first suggestion would be that it may be some sort of auditory-induced hypothalmic/amygdalar/somatosensory seizure - except seizures are indiscriminate between pleasure/pain/etc. and nobody really reports having extreme negative responses from the videos, so it's some form of intrinsic mechanism in the brain. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that it's an absolutely ridiculous, unfounded term for it. Schpudd (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's the only universally recognised term for it at this point. I'm sure it'll be given a proper name once it enters into medical research. Until then, popular culture and the media set the pace. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't like the term either, but we have to go on Wikipedia with whatever is in most common use in the most reliable sources. That may change (and I hope it does). Antandrus (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't like the term, no scientific person would like this term. People like Benny Hinn and major religious figures employ similar methods to ASMR practitioners to induce calming and trance sensations in their audience. The difference with the ASMR people is that they understand it's just a pleasing sensation rather than a mystical experience. As a result of so many high level people using it (many people get the feeling from Bob Ross' painting, and there's a reason they actually put microphones on his canvas to amplify the scraping/brush sounds) - it's going to be difficult to get it researched because it's being employed as a psychological trick by many. The ASMR people are just selling it to you up-front. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the advantage of such an improbable term is that when you type ASMR in Google or Youtube, you find right away what you are looking for. :-)

Neuroscience section

I added in this section but wonder if is it too vague/irrelevant to ASMR? The intention for adding was to provide a general basis for complex behavior and mention some abnormal events of somatosensory system, since ASMR is a "biological phenomenon" described as a pleasant tingling sensation. DevonJamesKing (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. A section like this only makes sense if it introduces concepts which are used later in the article; otherwise, it risks leading to synthesis-by-association, where the introduction of scientific terms adds an aura of "scienceyness" to the rest of the article's assertions. -- The Anome (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The only reason there isn't scientific literature on it is because it hasn't been publicly researched, not because it doesn't exist. The real question should not be "why doesn't ASMR exist because the scientific community hasn't investigated it?" but "why does the scientific community feel the need to refuse to show interest in it?" They've done fMRIs on people "speaking in tongues" and that is far less interesting than extremely pleasurable responses to auditory and visual stimulus intrinsic in the brain. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Voluntary nature?

I find a lot of parallels for ASMR in hypnotism. However credible it actually is, it seems a major part of the whole concept is some level of voluntarism. The way people talk about this seems like it could have a lot to do with people willfully letting themselves "feel it" or "get into the mood" etc. etc. etc. We have YouTube personalities commanding large amounts of people using whispers and tapping. People buy in and then, since all the barriers have been broken, they are more easily tingled or whatever the hell happens. In any case, the article for hypnosis is pretty much a joke in terms of content and style, so I don't see this article getting any better either. 107.199.113.209 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Audio technology - Binaural / Holophonic 3D

There is an important point missing in this article, very worthy being mentioned, on my opinion: Audio recordings leading to ASMR are usually using an holophonic or Binaural recording technology. That means all sounds recorded and played through headphones will be very accurately spatialized, creating an audio "illusion".

This illusion can be "disturbing", as the people can easily mistake sounds coming from headphones and sounds coming form the real environment. It's extremly immersive.

It is mainly this effect that creates a feeling that the sounds you hear are coming from people or objects that are here, pretty close to your ear, not from a recording. This immersion and "weird" feeling are, on my opinion, the core of ASMR. The brain is bluffed by the stimulus, the imagination does the rest.

Role playing content on Youtube (virtual hair cut) or whispering videos are examples that rely a lot on this audio illusion. Without Binaural / holophonic technology, those videos produce much less effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.232.65 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 March 2014

Perhaps if a reliable source can be found which covers this, it could be included, but it just doesn't seem necessary for the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I just check out Binaural recording, and the samples provided are quite demonstrative. I am personally inclined to call bullshit on ASMR, and I can see how binaural recordings would give you any number of sensations. Do it in a seductive voice and you might get happy tingles. Do it in a creepy haunting voice and you might get terror tingles. It's also disappointing that this article relies a lot on YouTube references... And now I'm starting to browse some ASMR videos, and it looks more and more like some weird fetish thing. People are looking for IRL experiences on their computers. It just looks like a self-defensive soft porn community. 107.199.113.209 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of sharing your personal opinion in a such disparaging tone on something that has been reported as real and very enjoyable by hundreds of thousands of people (at the very last)? Be honest with yourself: it's all just about crying out loud "Mee too I exist" to the world... Grumpy and childish, don't you find?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.208.177 (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ASMR is an acronym

Was incorrectly called a Neologism in the opening sentence. This would suggest a pronouncable word that is derived loosely from the acronym, but no such Neologism exists for ASMR. See

71.232.134.219 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

it is true that "ASMR" is an acronym. it is also true that the phrase "Autonomous sensory meridian response" is a neologism. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how you bring up the point that the word is not pronouncable but then say it's an acronym anyway. Acronyms are supposed to be pronouncable. ASMR is an intialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.139.72 (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This distinction is somewhat contentious, and in my experience the term "initialism" is never used; and "acronym" is given a broad enough definition to cover everything.

In any case, the article doesn't say "acronym". If you have a concern that relates directly to the article, I didn't see it. —WOFall (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

References

A scientific theory of ASMR

An "Origin Theory of ASMR" has been posted at this website: www.asmruniversity.com. It was written by a university professor of physiology. It is just a theory but it is based on related and established biology, and may be the best and most complete scientific explanation of ASMR currently available. 50.134.41.90 (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be self published and not peer reviewed, so I don't believe it would be valid for inclusion in the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

True, although the wiki article contains thoughts and theories from other scientists that are no where close to the thoroughness or depth of this theory. It seems that this theory and analysis of ASMR would be quite helpful to anyone looking for a place to begin doing biological research on ASMR. This theory and scientist were featured in a recent ABC Radio Documentary on ASMR <http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/radiotonic/in-audible-me/5665224> and in a written article about the science of ASMR <http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/radiotonic/the-art-and-science-of-whispering/5672870> 50.134.41.90 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Article seems unnecessarily suspicious of the phenomenon

This article is written like this is something that is potentially dangerous ("the safety has not been established"), but let's be real here, we're talking about listening to people whispering/tapping objects against each other. I fail to see how this is any different than a couple whispering to each other in bed, or a watching a cooking show. The only difference is that this uses a recorded medium.LiamSP (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A skeptic's consideration of the phenomena: why skeptics might jump to delete or call this BS

ASMR is a weird thing. It's a sensory feeling, kind of like if I had to explain what it feels like to touch something or what something tastes like.

So, some people (like me) get a weird feeling when you hear certain soft tapping sounds or if people do things close up with their hands or speak a certain way. It's a feeling in the back of your head that almost feels like a tickling sensation. Its bizarre, and its being researched with MRI machines versus controls in Ithaca.

As a skeptic, I understand a lot of folks in the skeptical world who claim its made up or its some kind of scam or whatever because its very hard to scientifically demonstrate. I think it's demonstrable when contrasting it with controls, button presses and certain stimuli, and I feel that a proper scientific test could be created to demonstrate it to those who don't experience it.

Kind of hard to explain sensations. I mean, if you tried to explain the color red to a blind from birth person who was extra skeptical and not only didn't accept the testimony of people who saw the color, but wasn't convinced by the demonstration that people could solve problems with objects on a table colored red that the blind person couldn't.

Now just apply that to feeling a weird feeling in the back of your head that was somewhat pleasurable.

As Sagan used to say on the overtly 'skeptical' conspiracy theorists: It's too mundane to fake in any case. - Cen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.125.143 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This article needs a tidy up. Fascinating topic. I first became aware of this sensation when my local 'window cleaner' would wash my windows. I found the sound of the wiper gently brushing the glass strangely therapeutic, and I never understood the reason why. I also received a tingling feeling one day when watching a video of a swan peck at his reflection in a motorists side mirror. A soft, dull tapping on glass. Exactly the same soothing, tingling sensation. And today I discover this is actually a thing. Very odd. — TPX 01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been deleted yet??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.47.18 (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe take a look at Grey alien or Category:Alternative medical treatments or Category:Conspiracy theories, ad infinitum. Anything with sufficient coverage can have an article about it, even if the contents are only to debunk it.

Note that this talk page is here to discuss concrete ways to improve the article, it is not a forum to debate the topic itself. And Articles for deletion is thataway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Further reading?

Idiot's Guides: ASMR was published on 5 May 2015, written by Julie Young and Ilse Blansert (TheWaterwhispers) – can this be used in a "Further reading" section on the article? I'm not 100% sure about the rules for adding books about a subject, particularly when one of the authors is a "leader" in terms of the ASMR movement, or at least an influential and popular figure. Perhaps this can be challenged as a reason not to include it? I'm not sure how to proceed. Bonnietylersave (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Added. I think it's appropriate for the further reading section. Ilse is certainly one of the leaders of the ASMR community, so perhaps could be considered an expert contributor in the field. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

A shiver down one's spine

That's just what it is to me, that's how I experiment it. There are many songs and other quotes where you can find shiver donw my/your spine. Now, "ASMR" is new to me, but, I don't understand why this expression "shiver down once spine" is not on the article. Now, I'm not documented and don't want to make researches to find some sources to do what a good wikipedia user should do to modify an article, so, I just hope someone reading those lines will find a way to make the connection between ASMR and "shiver down once spine" in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.171.220 (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to the term "shivers down one's spine" I've heard of it but not sure if it applies to this article. Here's a short definition for shivers down one's spine but I haven't researched it either. DevonJamesKing (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You are possibly confusing with 'Frisson', a common mistake, but my apologies if you are not. 118.209.125.245 (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a different phenomenon. I experience 'ASMR' as a tingling or bubbling in the frontal lobe, accompanied by a feeling of tranquillization. I'd describe it as a head-rush and definitely not a shiver. It lasts a long time after the stimulus ceases.217.155.42.183 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC) For me AS MR videos work really well. I get a full body high with a sense of relaxation and well being. I wouldn't call it tingling because I associate tingling with negative sensations. Similar to opiates. It actually knocks me out so it's a great way to treat insomnia. I first experienced it when I noticed I felt a powerful high and a bit of a chill when listening to soft spoken inductors as a kid. Very rarely did someone speak in the way that made me feel good so I had no idea what about the voice triggered it. I'm pretty sure that it's releasing endorphins. Can't wait to see a long term study I'd love to be part of it.71.92.81.27 (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

ASMR Research & Support link is to an inactive site

The site www.asmr-research.org has been defunct for a while. Recommend adding www.asmruniversity.com. Site has list of published and ongoing research on ASMR (http://asmruniversity.com/asmr-research-and-publications/) and is the best site I've seen for covering the science and research of ASMR. See this site repeatedly mentioned in articles and on other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiter1900 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Second video unnecessarily contains advertising for a soft drink.

I removed the second video. It basically showed how a soft drink from a labelled bottle is poured into a glass. Content hosted in Wikipedia is not for advertising.--Kernpanik (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As the editor who added the video, I did not add it to advertise anything. It was one of the few freely licensed ASMR videos that I could find online. If you can find another freely licensed ASMR video of comparable quality to replace it, then feel free to add that, but until then I'm restoring the video. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

And, there is no obvious intent by the video's author to advertise. I'm not sure where Kernpanik got the idea that merely showing a brand on camera constitutes advertising for said brand. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

sexiness

Is it not considered that a lot of these ASMR videos are of a woman addressing her self to a camera as thought it were a sex partner with some thin scenario about selling a suit or suchlike. This is erotica ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Significant Attention Required

I have tagged this article with two templates. ASMR is a challenging subject, because it is a cultural phenomena with a subjective experience at the center, for which there is consensus as to its nature, but as yet no controlled scientific investigations into neural and psychophysical correlates. It is however, according to a number of commentators, comparable in some measure to other conditions, such as synaesthesia. In addition, there is considerable scholarly and scientific work on the nature and significance of whispering, a core component of ASMR media, and intimate verbal rapport. If the article is to be included in Wikipedia, I think it should properly address the subject in both contexts: cultural and scientific. I am working on a draft of this. In addition I have removed existing external links, as none of them meet the guidelines for external links. They included a link to the home page of a Blog, with highly variable content, often sparse with no academic, scholarly or encyclopaedic content; a forum full of people sharing their experiences of 'tingles', 'brain orgasms' and other sensations; and a list of videos. A link from an article of unknown scientific significance but considerable cultural import should be to a source of information with verifiable sources to prevent Wikipedia contributing to bias and fuelling a meme. I am of course open to challenge and write the above only to provide reasons for my flagging of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolumbo (talk • contribs) 09:31, 1 December 2015

You've made a good argument for why this article doesn't qualify for Featured Article status, but otherwise there's no significant issues that urgently need to be addressed. The article gives a broad summary of what is widely known about ASMR, and it samples the main opinions on the subject. It clearly provides context: it explains the term is new, that it gained attention in online forums, then YouTube, then mainstream media. Scientific reaction followed and was inconclusive.

From what I can tell your complaints could be directed at any topic that has been less than thoroughly investigated by researchers. In other words, it's not Wikipedia's job to rectify the fact that ASMR is not well-researched. Our job is nothing more than to make clear to readers that this is not something with strong scientific consensus behind it. It's a subjective phenomenon. If the artilce failed to present it that way, we'd have a problem. The lack of definitive facts is not Wikipedia's problem.

Don't hesitate to improve the article if you have more sources you want to include, but otherwise it's adequate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur that the article is fine as it is, given the state of the science about the (alleged) phenomenon. (Disclaimer: I can feel it myself, so I may be subjective.)Zezen (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Different perceived types

I wanted to expand upon this some time ago but haven't had the time: It seems like people perceive ASMR to be different things.

The line:

3D sounds from a person may elicit a tangible feeling of the person being near the listener, while certain kinds of ambient noise may simply sound pleasurable.

could be expanded. The effect, the end result may very well be the same? Or not? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure it's that people perceive ASMR to be different things, just that different things cause people to experience the "symptoms" of ASMR. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still very vague whether ASMR is the symptoms or something else, perhaps the phenomenon happening in the body that leads to the stimuli being felt pleasurable. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Expansion and rewrite on 29 January 2016

As usual I am leaving a note about this edit to assist those seeking to amend, revert, challenge, or simply know my modus operandi.

1. I rechecked all links on 20 January, adjusting 'Retrieved' date accordingly. A source cited in the preceding version seemed to have disappeared, with no evidence of it's existence. So I removed it. All other sources and their associated content has been kept in regard for the previous editors.
2. Some sections have little content, but I thought it better to structure the article so that it can accommodate new developments under their apposite headings in the future.
3. I have removed the videos because they really are not indicative nor do they exemplify ASMR videos, though they may have done some time ago. A Google search takes you straight to a mountain of them on YouTube, so I doubt anything is lost. However, I imagine that finding contemporaries to upload video to WM would be no problem.
4. Most importantly: I have taken great care in ensuring that this article clearly differentiates between science and speculation, between medicine and clinical conjecture. If I have failed PLEASE point out exactly what needs to be addressed, for the benefit of future editors, because I doubt a template saying it needs more this that or the other will help.

Prolumbo (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A hat note suggests that this article lacks structure- Thanks for the opinion. Working on it I have structured the sub sections which adds the clarity requested. Editors with more detailed knowledge may like to tweak the information to ensure it is under the correct head/sub-head/sub-sub-head. The next stage IMHO is to:

1. look at a similar article and see if their structure is different/better.
2. Re-read the existing text and see if it see reads correctly with the new headings and tweak.
3. Re-read and remove any duplications- such as the re-explaining a term several times.
4. Cull material that is off-focus- or park it in a {{efn|.....}} (remember to add tag ===Additional notes=== {{notelist}} to display}}

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to say the rewrite looks excellent. There was a section that pontificated on Chinese acupuncture and other unrelated meanings of the term "meridian" which roamed into the realm of subjective and tangential writing and theorizing on the choice of words (and in an unsubstantiated manner), but otherwise does a great job covering the phenomenon and associated communities. The term "meridian", speaking from first hand knowledge, was chosen based on the dictionary definition from dictionary.com: (noun) a point or period of highest development, greatest prosperity, or the like. and (adjective) of or indicating a period of greatest prosperity, splendor, success, etc. - I'm looking for a citation to add to substantiate this before adding it to the article.96.39.72.155 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Media Coverage

I'm not sure what the purpose of this section is, nor am I aware of any precedent for including a huge list of media outlets like this. It seems like a roundabout way of simply including a bunch of unnecessary external links. If there's relevant information in a particular news article, then add the information and cite the article as per usual. Otherwise, these should be gotten rid of. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It was not a roundabout way of including external links. Why would I do that? There was already a media coverage section in the article before I extended and re-wrote it, so I expanded upon it to omplete the coverage. But I have no problem in it being removed if you think that so documenting the media coverage makes the aerticle worse. Prolumbo (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if this came off as personal or as an accusation; that was not my intention. I had not looked through the history to see whether one editor or many had contributed to the list (though I had rather assumed that it gradually came into being). To the point though, I do consider removing this section to be an improvement because the list adds a decent bit of clutter without providing any truly valuable (in my opinion) information about ASMR. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Extremely creepy videos

Anyone who does not experience ASMR will find the videos on this page extremely creepy. I sometimes experience the sensation, but even I found them unnecessarily creepy. In particular, the two featuring a French woman whispering into a camera are rather obviously intended to be sexual, and I don't feel that they are appropriate on Wikipedia. Those two videos, at least, should be removed.

I suppose the one showing carbonation of a soft drink can stay. It's… weird, but not as creepy as the other two. Lionboy-Renae (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could suggest some alternative videos to replace them with. It's difficult to find decent-quality ASMR videos that are appropriately licensed for inclusion on Wikipedia—these three are the only ones I found after quite a bit of searching. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Aside from being in French and loading absurdly slowly, there seems to be nothing wrong with the two videos mentioned above. While I don't speak French, nothing about the tone or style seems to be sexual in any way. The top video in particular appears to be a very standard example of whisper video and haul video. There's also nothing creepy about them (not that being "creepy" is actually a valid reason to remove something), and I say that as a person who does not experience ASMR, although I do watch a fair amount of ASMR videos for relaxation. If we could find exactly the same videos in English they'd be perfect. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

request edit

In January 14th, 2016 Dr. Franziska Apprich, Assistant Professor in the School of Communication and Media Studies at Canadian University Dubai (CUD), has been awarded the title of Outstanding Scientist at the Venus International Foundation Research Awards (VIFRA). She received the accolade for her pioneering study into autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR), a psychological phenomenon that can provide an outlet from the pressures of modern-day media overload.

Dr Apprich said in reference to her paper (The Impact of ASMR on the Social Media generation), “ASMR offers relaxation through calm eye and ear whispering contact, precipitating what is often described as a ‘tingling sensation’. Using ASMR footage as a means of releasing the anxiety surrounding the pressure of social media is among the most common activities of today’s multimedia generation.”

Dr. Apprich continued, “The ASMR community interacts via its own social media sites, including social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter; video sites such as YouTube; as well as blogs. Yet while early psychologists recognized the power of meditation and its unique potential for the human brain, somehow ASMR has remained under-explored in science.”

Dr. Apprich embarked upon a scientific study with a Neurologist Center, to explore its effect on a group of research participants, among whom were sufferers of panic attacks, depression and sleep disorders.

During the research, participants were placed on a bed and covered with a blanket. The lights were dimmed, eyes closed and – for the purposes of this particular study – the sound of someone chewing gum was played. After exploring ASMR, participants were interviewed to gather information about their experiences.

Dr. Apprich reported, “We found that people with anxiety problems became calmer, people with sleep disorders fell asleep and people with depressions felt lighter. Furthermore, the research found that the longer the participants were exposed to the sound – though some even disliked it at first – the more they relaxed. Notably, some have even replaced medication for ASMR following the research.”

While still in its infancy, Dr. Apprich believes that there are strong prospects for ASMR to be applied in a clinical context. She concluded, “My research has shown that people with great anxiety came down with the simple sound of chewing gum; a phenomenon that was actually new to the neurologist and nursing teams. The introduction of ASMR as a respected and scientifically proven outlet for social media generations requires ambassadors to stand with it, explore it and celebrate it.”

What Rock and Roll was for the 40s and 50s is ASMR for today s audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.8.149.24 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Request to remove videos Suggestion

Since this article has been written, there has been scientific literature published in peer reviewed journals on the phenomena. However, concerns exist (or existed) about its credibility. The article needs general clean up, esp. of the pop-sci references. The videos are problematic, and I recommend their removal. Please comment as to thoughts on whether or not the videos should be removed. Netherzone (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the videos are a good illustration of the article's topic—what is your objection to them? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, YouTube videos are often not perceived as reliable sources, and can also present copyright issues. Because some of the criticism of this article is based on its credibility, it would better serve the article, and the encyclopedia, to remove them, and instead, link to scientific papers, reliable news sources, peer reviewed journals, books, or videos from an official channel. The first video has the following description: "Find me on my site....Find more videos on the ASMR Club website. If you want to thank me...and support me you can make me happy with a "gift voucher Amazon" (with link for payment) and a link to a Facebook page for the ASMR Club". This is uncomfortably amateurish, and does not resonate credibility and notability. The plea for "gift voucher support" is inappropriate. The second video seems like an ad for Peligrino soda due to product placement. The third video comes from a source that offers Facebook, Twitter and Bandcamp as credentials. These are not reliable sources.

WP policy on YouTube Videos.... WP:VIDEOLINK. At WP:ELPEREN WP:EL/P the YouTube video summary is as follows:

• As an external link: Sometimes. Videos from "official channels", like the United States' Naval History & Heritage Command, are more likely to be accepted than other links.
• As a reliable source: Sometimes. If the source would normally be considered reliable (e.g., a segment from a well-known television news show, or an official video channel from a major publisher), then a copy of the source on YouTube is still considered reliable.
• Common issues:

1. Videos must be carefully screened for copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER, WP:COPYLINK, WP:YT). The creator of the video must be verifiable as an official channel for the source. Do not link to copyright violations in citations, even if they reproduce information, such as news reports, that might otherwise be considered reliable.

2. Many readers (especially users on restricted or metered bandwidth, or those behind restrictive corporate or educational firewalls) are unable to view video.

3. Videos often contain less information than alternative websites or the Wikipedia article itself (ELNO #1).

4. Videos must be labeled with software requirements (Rich media).

5. Editors enforce a particularly high standard for links to videos.

Netherzone (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are no copyright issues in this case, because the videos are all released under acceptable Creative Commons licenses. The videos are also not being used as sources, and they are not external links. Instead, they are examples, embedded in the article, to illustrate the type of videos that the article is talking about. So WP:VIDEOLINK (which is an essay, not a policy) and the external link policies and guidelines that you cited do not apply, and I don't think any of your other concerns apply either. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

By commenting on the videos, my intention was not to make you feel defensive. I am sorry if they had that effect. Yet, in fact, I am trying to help the article gain more credibility. The article is about a phenomena - a neurological and/or physiological and/or sensory response. It is not an article about videos. The videos lessen the credibility of the subject because they are non-notable sources. If you feel strongly about including a video, why not simply include one in the section ASMR media - ASMR videos. By including three videos - two at the article lead, that are of questionable reliability and notability of source, it weakens the article. IMO, the media that would strengthen it would be data visualizations. Netherzone (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't feeling defensive, just pointing out the problems with your argument. I've moved one of the videos to the "ASMR videos" section, but I think the other one is acceptable for the lead. If we can find or make a data visualization to replace it, that would be fine by me, but until we do, the video is the most informative lead image available. Its "questionable reliability and notability" are irrelevant, so I don't see how it weakens the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not realize this was anything other than a discussion - certainly not an "argument." As mentioned, my comments are intended to help the credibility of the article based on the numerous, previous (negative) comments on the talk page, coupled with my own response to the article itself in it's present form. Regarding a better lead image or photo or illustration....Here is a link to sources on Google Scholar - perhaps there is a graphic, or chart that is available. The first article is open-source. The peer reviewed version of this article can be found HERE. There one descriptive illustration and two charts that list the DOI reference. You could reach out to the authors to ask permission to use them, and to the copTn my opinion, the first illustration would be a good one for the lead section. Your videos could be linked below in the video section. Just an idea for improvement. In the meantime, I'll be working on other pages & projects, but will check back here periodically, as I find the subject interesting. Netherzone (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Granger Here is a Creative Commons licensed image that visually describes the response, and comes from a peer-reviewed journal, should you wish to upload it to the article. https://peerj.com/articles/851/#fig-1 Hope this is helpful to you. Netherzone (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finding it! I've added it to the article. I'm now okay with removing the first video from the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The second image from the same source seems like it might be a good addition to the article too. I've uploaded it to Commons as File:ASMR BDI graph.png, but I'm not sure where in the article to put it (if anywhere). —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)