Talk:Photic sneeze reflex

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Backronym 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge [[photic reflex]] into photic sneeze reflex

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Earliest known written reference

message: These articles refer to the same condition and should be merged. --apers0n 09:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, merge the painfully long ACHOO title into this one. --Blainster 21:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto (hilarious though)--DO11.10 01:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with [[Autosomal Dominant Compelling Helio-Ophthalmic Outburst Syndrome]] 

message: 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)
replies: text:  agreed. I'd leave it out til finding a reference.  they can probably be found on pubmed. sallison 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposede new section 

message: I just wondering if its appropriate to merge this article whith the article labled as  
Richardson j 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merger with sneeze [[User:Richardson j|Richardson j]] 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible reasons... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  not a disease 

message: 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)
thread_title: Horses

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Definitely not a Support Group 

message: 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)
replies: text: J.J.Askenasy (1990) "The Photic Sneeze" suggests "25% of the general white population"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  is this a hoax? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Evolutionary Basis? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Important information 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hereditary or not? 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed etiology for the photic sneeze reflex 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Propofol-induced sneezing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Duplicate references