Talk:Photic sneeze reflex

Latest comment: 3 months ago by 2605:59C8:177D:A410:74AE:E2A:36EE:9417 in topic Duplicate references

Backronym edit

Good article, but unless somebody can come up with a mildly authoritative cite, that clever "ADCHOO" backronym has got to go... Jpatokal 09:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"...is a medical condition by which people exposed to bright light involuntarily sneeze" Is it possible to voluntarily sneeze? Benny 17:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

So fix it. I can voluntarily sneeze by tickling my nostril with Q-Tips. JFW | T@lk 13:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

ACHOO is legit ... added the reference. sallison 23:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

  • I don't know enough about the science bit (hah!) to confidently edit the page, but if that's what 'ACHOO' actually stands for, then surely it's not a backronym? If you take a look at the backronym article, it describes it in detail. I'd say that's an acronym, maybe even an apronym? Backronyms attribute new (and often ironic) meanings to an acronym and often stem from folk etymologies, such as POSH supposedly meaning Port Out Starboard Home. ACHOO might be 'whimsical', but it's still from the initial letters of the recognised phrase, from the looks of the article. Well quite 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • I have this condition, but only when there is a need to sneeze. It basically assists the sneezing and so causes no problem looking at brights light alone. This is an advantage to me. If look at bright light on purpose, I get the sneeze done faster if I feel the need to do. Is there any information about this occuring? Or am I the only one of the kind?
This is the wrong place to talk about it but I'm exactly the same. If I have even a mild urge to sneeze that feels like it might pass, glancing towards a bright light or especially looking out of a window at the bright sky will trigger the sneeze and it will usually be more intense than a normal one. I've noticed lately though that being in a bright location can make me a bit "sneezy" in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.12.174 (talk) 14:28, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • I have this condition too, so do both of my daughters. I can voluntarily sneeze by looking at bright lights, even if I didn't previously feel the urge to sneeze. Another thing about this condition, as it is with me, it will prolong the euphoric feeling that preceeds a sneeze and make me drowsy. If I forget my shades on a sunny day, I'll want to sleep all day.... Willie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.159.221 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • I have it. I was told that a likely cause could be that the bright light caused tears to go down the ducts that lead to nasal cavity. The sneeze was a response to the tears in the nasal area. Is this the case? I have no answer for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.76.5 (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Merge photic reflex into photic sneeze reflex edit

It has been proposed that the photic reflex page be merged into this page. I agree. The information on that page should just be replaced with a redirect to this page. None of the information currently there needs to be carried over. sallison 07:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Earliest known written reference edit

For the historically curious, I found the Aristotle quote that this article mentions:

Q. Why does the heat of the sun provoke sneezing, and not the heat of the fire?
A. Because the heat  of the sun doth dissolve, but not consume, and therefore the
   vapour dissolved is expelled by sneezing; but the heat of the fire doth dissolve
   and consume, and therefore doth rather hinder sneezing than provoke it.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12699/12699-h/12699-h.htm#BOOK_OF_PROBLEMS_Of_the_Nose I will leave it up to others to decide whether or not that is interesting enough to add to the article. Bob the Hamster 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

That in itself is just a full quote, which IMHO is not particularly suitable, but it is a great reference. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 23:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Missing References edit

What is the source of this fact?

In addition this sneeze reflex can be brought on by a sudden inhailing of cold air or a strong flavor such as a strong mint gum. This implies an overstimulation of any nerve close to the trigeminal nerve can cause the sneeze reflex.


I don't know about the source, but I will say, I sneeze when I eat a strong mint, but not bright sunlight or sudden cold. --WhiteDragon 18:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I too have this reaction with both sunlight and mints in particular (though other strong flavours can trigger it). I don't think it's that unusual either - a short search for "why do mints make me sneeze" should show that. --80.194.240.200 (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Not sure where the original reference came from, but I read it here. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bright-lights-and-things-make-11245150 I can't read the full article, but the abstract of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19617285 mentions "physical stimulants of the trigeminal nerve". The abstract doesn't say mint, but the full article may. Devilsbane (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I haven't noticed that I sneeze because of bright sunlight or sudden cold either, however I do sneeze after having strong flavours - not just strong mints. Such as: Marmite, dark chocolate, tonic water or even soft mints like toothpaste. Ethansomekh (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Another edit

What is the source of this assertion? It has been suggested that the photic sneeze reflex occurs only after someone has been adapted to the dark for at least five minutes, although this is not certain, and is not uniform amongst people with the photic sneeze reflex Also: always and not uniform are contradictory. rewinn 04:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where does it say always? frogTape (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps he meant only and not uniform?

Malfunction...or protective reflex? edit

Is there evidence that this reflex is truly a malfunction or could it be a protective reflex? The fact that it's found more with caucasians suggests that it could have a protective purpose which could have something to do with snow (especially in spring time and high UV exposure), ambient lighting and dark winters vs bright summers. What I've noticed is that it's almost always only sunlight that triggers the effect and rarely an artificial light source suggesting that its triggered by something in sun light, like UV rays. - G3, 12:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For a protective reflex, what is being protected? Just curious and I "suffer" from the condition firsthand. I likewise almost always sneeze when exposed to a sudden change in natural lighting and likewise rarely sneeze when the light source is artificial. I can also back up the multiple sneezes mention in the article as nearly always my sneezes tend to be triggered for three consecutive times, rarely two and extremely rarely, if at all, one. Though my brother shares the condition, my parents do not.
I believe it's simply that sunlight is much much brighter than any artificial light. In the presence of very bright artificial light, I can sometimes feel a sneeze building, but it usually "gets stuck". I would be willing to throw out the protetion theory based on that experience. It seems to get stronger with a brighter light, and it isn't only sunlight that does it. --BennyD 00:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ditto. For me, it's not so much artificial vs. natural light, but rather the brightness of the light. -- Superdosh 00:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have no problem sneezing from artificial light; I just have to get really close. --72.43.149.190 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I believe it has something to do with the total amount of light hitting the retina. I very bright light in the distance doesn't do it, but looking up at the sky on a bright day does, as does getting up close to a bright light so that it covers most of my field of view. --JeffW 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I do this, I have always thought of it as a protective reflex as it forces me to look away from the sky when I sneeze. It could possibly protect against a blinding light. In the land of the blind the Photic Sneezers are king... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.117.161.148 (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Proposed merger with Autosomal Dominant Compelling Helio-Ophthalmic Outburst Syndrome edit

These articles refer to the same condition and should be merged. --apers0n 09:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, merge the painfully long ACHOO title into this one. --Blainster 21:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ditto (hilarious though)--DO11.10 01:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

This was merged LeeVJ (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Proposede new section edit

Well, I happen to have this disease, and I have seen on this talk page various descriptions of what triggers the sneeze. Should we add a section listing possible irritants that bring on a sneeze? Should say something like:

  • Sneezes can be brought on by any of these (but not necessarily all, from person-to-person)
    • Most commonly, a sudden transition from the eye receiving little light to a lot of light (e.g., stepping out of a dark theater into a bright parking lot)
    • For some, it can only be brought on by sunlight; others by any bright light.
    • A sudden transition from breathing warm air to breathing cold air.
    • A particularly strong taste, such as strong mint gum.
    • Some people don't even have to be in a dark place and transition to a bright place; any especially strong light will trigger a sneeze.
    • Some people can only sneeze once; quite a few always sneeze twice. A few can even sneeze three times in particularly harsh conditions. There is evidence that sneeze-once (under normal conditions) and sneeze-twice (under normal conditions) is genetically based. [citation needed]


sounds good to me, except for that last item, which seems too detailed to leave unsourced. I happen to sneeze upwards of a half dozen times when it happens to me.

Personally I'd say leave all of it out until you can find a reference. Anecdotal evidence isn't encyclopaedic. Potkettle 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
agreed. I'd leave it out til finding a reference. they can probably be found on pubmed. sallison 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can vouch for the strong mint causing sneezes. Definitely always happens to me...

Possible merger with sneeze Richardson j 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC) edit

I just wondering if its appropriate to merge this article whith the article labled as {{ sneeze }} Richardson j 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Possible reasons... edit

There was talk of possible protective causes of this effect. Thinking about this, it occured to me that you cannot sneeze with your eyes open. Is it possible the sneeze is a way of making you shut your eyes and therefore shield them from the bright light bringing on the sneeze?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.194.13.102 (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

hi ummmmm.... yea did you know that Photic Sneeze Reflex is also called the ACHOO syndrome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.94.253 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

All I know is that if I feel a sneeze coming on, I can induce it with any bright light, even a bright TV screen or monitor (or a 40W bulb at close range.) Sure, I sneeze a half a dozen times when going out into sunlight, but that's better than walking around with a sneeze stuck up your nostrils that won't quite come. Got it from my Mom and passed it on to my son. . . I should ask my sisters about it sometime: I think one of them has it as well.206.45.135.233 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Everyone including professionals are certain that this isn't triggered by sudden eye-watering? When my eyes suddenly tear up, I feel a stab of nasal irritation. Obvious cause: the 'drainage duct' at the corner of our eyes which connects with the sinuses. Yes, and also crying makes your nose run. 128.95.172.173 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

not a disease edit

I don't really care for the "pathological" tone of the article, with references e.g. to people "suffering" from the reflex. There's not much suffering involved -- you look into the Sun, you sneeze, you look away, you stop sneezing. No big whoop. This isn't a disease, just a variant reflex well within the range of normal human variation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, I "suffer" from this reflex and I even find it quite handy when I can't quite manage to sneeze, I just have to gaze directly into the sun for a splitsecond or at night a bright bulb does the same thing.

On a tangent, is there any evidence supporting the notion that people with Blue eyes are more predisposed to this reflex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.96.66 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is also listed on List of neurological disorders ... I agree, for me it's a nifty feature. It's not really clear from the article if it causes real problems for some people. JöG (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

How does this "genetic disease" reduce fitness? If it exists at all it's a trait, not a disease. Natural selection would put the kabosh on a harmful disorder before it spread to 18% to 35% of the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.129.154 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! My reaction to the article was "You mean doctors have medicalized this common, neutral human trait and are trying to convince us it is a disorder or disease in need of 'management'?" I know they need to drum up business but this is pretty repulsive.

First off, do not confuse diseases with disorders. A sneeze 1-3 times isn't suffering, for sure, but my husband gets those fits and it's usually more than 10 sneezes. People all around us start glaring at him, thinking he's joking around. I can assure you, one CAN suffer. Besides, who cares what doctors treat? It's really not your concern. The human race has this thing about choice, you know. It's up to them to decide for themselves whether or not to seek treatment. Just because YOU don't like it, means absolutely nothing. If you don't like it, then don't seek treatment, but to insult people who really have a problem here, is asinine. May I add that I'm a retired nurse who worked as a nurse for decades. I know more about it than anyone not in the medical field. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Horses edit

Some horses have a similar response to glaring light, known as photic head tossing. That might be worth adding to this article. --Una Smith (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Definitely not a Support Group edit

The last link to the Experience Project is not a "support group" for photic sneezers. EP is a site where people network through shared experiences. Since it is not a support group, the link really serves no purpose in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.181.232 (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whether it's a support group or simply a discussion group on the subject is irrelevant. It *is* relevant to this article whether you or I personally like the site it's on or not.173.12.172.149 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

is this a hoax? edit

What's up with the 18-35% incidence? The article is less than 6 months old and while I haven't looked into it but this appears to be a possible hoax. Will PROD it if a subsequent examination confirms the suspicion. Lycurgus (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

J.J.Askenasy (1990) "The Photic Sneeze" suggests "25% of the general white population"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
23andme did a web survey of 10,000+ of its users in which 30% responded "yes" to the prompt "do you have a tendency to sneeze when exposed to bright sunlight?". They found a genetic association and published in PLoS genetics. http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000993 . So, no, it's not a hoax. 98.156.99.74 (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Evolutionary Basis? edit

Missing from both the article and the discussion is reference to a possible evolutionary basis for photic sneezing. Consider the following:

(1) Sneezing has a purpose, which is "to expel mucus containing foreign particles or irritants and cleanse the nasal cavity" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneeze). (2) "Some prehistoric humans were cave dwellers, but most were not." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_dweller) (3) The article states that "The condition affects 18-35% of the human population." (4) We Homo sapiens have 75 million years of primate evolution, 15 million years of Hominidae evolution and 2.5 million years of genus Homo evolution behind us.

Hypothesis: During the last 75 million years, plus or minus 18% of our evolutionary ancestors spent time (minutes to hours) in caves or other dark, dirty places for whatever reason. Often enough, they got foreign particles or irritants in their nasal passages, some of which may have contained bio-hazardous material (animal feces?). Upon completing their activities in such places, they exited into the sunlight. Our cave dwelling ancestors who then sneezed reduced their exposure to inhaled contaminants, possibly increasing their odds of survival. The other 82% of our ancestors who didn't spend much time in caves, etc. didn't need this reflex, but the caveman population found the reflex useful. TwentyForty (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Important information edit

Exacerbating photic sneeze reflex can be female hormones from what I've experienced and what my opthalmologist said; this could be added to the article. Also, other posts on here downplay how severe this condition can get. Around my cycle I sometimes am so debilitated by it (needing to spend the day under covers in a dark room to get relief/escape from light) that I can't function. It feels like I have to sneeze every 2 seconds even when I don't sneeze, and my eyes burn, and I feel feverish though my temperature is normal; when I do sneeze it is violent and my nose won't stop running. These are not viral or bacterial symptoms as they reliably happen almost every cycle (I occasionally get a reprieve, when the increase in hormones must be milder and my cycle symptoms are less), and it feels different than a cold or bacterial reaction. I wish this condition were more researched and cures (surgical or not) were found; I have tried antihistamines and they don't work consistently, they lose efficacy over time. I envy those who have this mild enough that they think it's a "blessing." All I can say is, try living with it at this level of severity, with no doctors able to give you answers. Nc1408 (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Citations edit

Citations 1 and 4 seem to be the same article, and should probably be combined. In the initial section, the percentage of people who experience this issue is given as 1-3.5%, while a later citation of that same article lists 18-35%. Perhaps someone with access to the article can clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.103.133 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hereditary or not? edit

Early in the article: "is a hereditary trait" appears, but then later a study shows it's "more likely to be acquired than inherited". Is this a contradiction? There doesn't seem to be any attempt to reconcile these opposing statements. Wilcfry (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Might there not be a hereditary pre-disposition for the condition to be acquired more readily? Evenso I think we'd need WP:RS for either/both claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks like "hereditary" has now been removed from first paragraph. This issue is moot, I guess. Wilcfry (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply


PS is clearly autosomal dominant in many families including mine. A neurologist has previously documented the autosomal dominant inheritance is his family. I can trace it through four generations in my family. I have investigated this for over 20 years. I have never seen it occur without a family history. In all cases of family history it appears without skipping generations and is equally likely in males and females. The study by 23andme suggests this gene is on chromosome 2. -EtherDoc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.3.102 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Proposed etiology for the photic sneeze reflex edit

A sneeze is a physiological phenomenon characterized by positive feedback, as are other functions such as ejaculation, micturition, defecation, parturition and more. Self-excitation by the afferent nerve endings serving the process is known in some cases, but not yet in the case of the trigeminal endings of the nasal mucosa. What is necessary to provoke a sneeze is a crescendo of impulses in fibers travelling from the nasal mucosa via the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve. Most commonly, some factor that causes irritation of the mucosa triggers the cascade of increasing excitability until a sensation of profound irritation and subsequent sneeze occurs. In the case of the photic sneeze, an interaction of the pupillary light reflex and the sneeze reflex occurs.

This interaction comes about due to a proximity of nerve fibers serving each reflex. Cranial nerves characteristically combine with one another in their peripheral courses as they approach common anatomical destinations. In the human, there is a short peripheral nerve called the nasociliary nerve in which both the trigeminal sneeze afferents and the parasympathetic oculomotor efferents are bundled together.

Nerve fibers rarely interact (cross-talk) with each other because of the insulation provided by the connective tissue investment of the neurovascular bundle that makes up the whole nerve. But in the case of the photic sneeze reflex, it is quite clear that provoking a discharge in the oculomotor parasympathetic preganglionic fibers travelling in the nasociliary nerve exacerbates the excitablity of the fellow nasal mucosal afferents.

The microstructure of the nasociliary nerve in the human has not been adquately studied to detect a difference between the populations that do and do not express the photic sneeze reflex. The photic sneeze is not a health problem that might ever warrant invasive electrophysiological studies on live human subjects, but a basic understanding of the phenomenon could well be achieved by taking tissue at autopsy from consenting donors and looking at microstructural details of the nasociliary nerve.

Patrick James Reynolds (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

There are no references, is this original research? Ifnord (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is a proposal derived from introspective thinking about the nasociliary nerve by a photic sneezer. I am retired and without institutional affiliation. I do not have access to the literature for current references nor an avenue through which to publish. But the proposal here is certainly testable and represents a clear link between light exposure and the sneeze reflex. I'd be glad to team up with anyone interested in researching and publishing on this topic.Patrick James Reynolds (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have removed this section from the article until references can be established. Best Regards, 67.10.226.142 (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Propofol-induced sneezing edit

How is propofol-induced sneezing related or relevant for this article? The two sections about it does not seem to be connected at all to the rest of the text. Sivizius (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removal of the ACHOO. It depresses the validity of the entry edit

No scholarly work uses that acronym. It seems to have been started and pushed hard by one person. "Also Known As" should have a higher standard than just one person thinking of something silly and funny and trying to force that onto the public. None of the cited journal articles use this.

If it is included, it should be noted as "One writer humorously coined the acronym ACHOO which may have entered popular media as an attention grabbing name, but that is only a recent pop cultural addition and most researchers do not use it."

Duplicate references edit

References 8 and 12 appear to be the same citation. Some of the places in the article referencing it don’t actually appear to be related. Did someone overwrite something somewhere? 2605:59C8:177D:A410:74AE:E2A:36EE:9417 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply