L E Roberts1. 1. Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster Institute for Music and the Mind, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, L8S 4K1, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. roberts@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Deafferentation caused by cochlear pathology (which can be hidden from the audiogram) activates forms of neural plasticity in auditory pathways, generating tinnitus and its associated conditions including hyperacusis. This article discusses tinnitus mechanisms and suggests how these mechanisms may relate to those involved in normal auditory information processing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Research findings from animal models of tinnitus and from electromagnetic imaging of tinnitus patients are reviewed which pertain to the role of deafferentation and neural plasticity in tinnitus and hyperacusis. RESULTS: Auditory neurons compensate for deafferentation by increasing their input/output functions (gain) at multiple levels of the auditory system. Forms of homeostatic plasticity are believed to be responsible for this neural change, which increases the spontaneous and driven activity of neurons in central auditory structures in animals expressing behavioral evidence of tinnitus. Another tinnitus correlate, increased neural synchrony among the affected neurons, is forged by spike-timing-dependent neural plasticity in auditory pathways. Slow oscillations generated by bursting thalamic neurons verified in tinnitus animals appear to modulate neural plasticity in the cortex, integrating tinnitus neural activity with information in brain regions supporting memory, emotion, and consciousness which exhibit increased metabolic activity in tinnitus patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The latter process may be induced by transient auditory events in normal processing but it persists in tinnitus, driven by phantom signals from the auditory pathway. Several tinnitus therapies attempt to suppress tinnitus through plasticity, but repeated sessions will likely be needed to prevent tinnitus activity from returning owing to deafferentation as its initiating condition.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Deafferentation caused by cochlear pathology (which can be hidden from the audiogram) activates forms of neural plasticity in auditory pathways, generating tinnitus and its associated conditions including hyperacusis. This article discusses tinnitus mechanisms and suggests how these mechanisms may relate to those involved in normal auditory information processing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Research findings from animal models of tinnitus and from electromagnetic imaging of tinnituspatients are reviewed which pertain to the role of deafferentation and neural plasticity in tinnitus and hyperacusis. RESULTS: Auditory neurons compensate for deafferentation by increasing their input/output functions (gain) at multiple levels of the auditory system. Forms of homeostatic plasticity are believed to be responsible for this neural change, which increases the spontaneous and driven activity of neurons in central auditory structures in animals expressing behavioral evidence of tinnitus. Another tinnitus correlate, increased neural synchrony among the affected neurons, is forged by spike-timing-dependent neural plasticity in auditory pathways. Slow oscillations generated by bursting thalamic neurons verified in tinnitus animals appear to modulate neural plasticity in the cortex, integrating tinnitus neural activity with information in brain regions supporting memory, emotion, and consciousness which exhibit increased metabolic activity in tinnituspatients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The latter process may be induced by transient auditory events in normal processing but it persists in tinnitus, driven by phantom signals from the auditory pathway. Several tinnitus therapies attempt to suppress tinnitus through plasticity, but repeated sessions will likely be needed to prevent tinnitus activity from returning owing to deafferentation as its initiating condition.
Authors: Lucy M Carracedo; Henrik Kjeldsen; Leonie Cunnington; Alastair Jenkins; Ian Schofield; Mark O Cunningham; Ceri H Davies; Roger D Traub; Miles A Whittington Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: William Sedley; Phillip E Gander; Sukhbinder Kumar; Hiroyuki Oya; Christopher K Kovach; Kirill V Nourski; Hiroto Kawasaki; Matthew A Howard; Timothy D Griffiths Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Marlies Knipper; Pim van Dijk; Holger Schulze; Birgit Mazurek; Patrick Krauss; Verena Scheper; Athanasia Warnecke; Winfried Schlee; Kerstin Schwabe; Wibke Singer; Christoph Braun; Paul H Delano; Andreas J Fallgatter; Ann-Christine Ehlis; Grant D Searchfield; Matthias H J Munk; David M Baguley; Lukas Rüttiger Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Leighton B N Hinkley; Paul S Larson; Jennifer Henderson Sabes; Danielle Mizuiri; Carly Demopoulos; Meredith E Adams; Thomas C Neylan; Christopher P Hess; Srikantan S Nagarajan; Steven W Cheung Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 5.038