Jenny X Chen1, Jonathon P Whitton2,3, Aravindakshan Parthasarathy1,2, Kenneth E Hancock1,2, Daniel B Polley1,2,4. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Harvard Medical School. 2. Eaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear. 3. Decibel Therapeutics Inc. 4. Lauer Tinnitus Research Center, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic, subjective tinnitus are often administered a battery of audiometric tests to characterize their tinnitus percept. Even a comprehensive battery, if applied just once, cannot capture fluctuations in tinnitus strength or quality over time. Moreover, subjects experience a learning curve when reporting the detailed characteristics of their tinnitus percept, such that a single assessment will reflect a lack of familiarity with test requirements. We addressed these challenges by programming an automated software platform for at-home tinnitus characterization over a 2-week period. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary referral center, patients' homes. INTERVENTIONS: Following an initial clinic visit, 25 subjects with chronic subjective tinnitus returned home with a tablet computer and calibrated headphones to complete questionnaires, hearing tests, and tinnitus psychoacoustic testing. We repeatedly characterized loudness discomfort levels and tinnitus matching over a 2-week period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes included intrasubject variability in loudness discomfort levels, tinnitus intensity, and tinnitus acoustic matching over the course of testing. RESULTS: Within-subject variability for all outcome measures could be reduced by approximately 25 to 50% by excluding initial measurements and by focusing only on tinnitus matching attempts where subjects report high confidence in the accuracy of their ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Tinnitus self-report is inherently variable but can converge on reliable values with extended testing. Repeated, self-directed tinnitus assessments may have implications for identifying malingerers. Further, these findings suggest that extending the baseline phase of tinnitus characterizations will increase the statistical power for future studies focused on tinnitus interventions.
OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic, subjective tinnitus are often administered a battery of audiometric tests to characterize their tinnitus percept. Even a comprehensive battery, if applied just once, cannot capture fluctuations in tinnitus strength or quality over time. Moreover, subjects experience a learning curve when reporting the detailed characteristics of their tinnitus percept, such that a single assessment will reflect a lack of familiarity with test requirements. We addressed these challenges by programming an automated software platform for at-home tinnitus characterization over a 2-week period. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary referral center, patients' homes. INTERVENTIONS: Following an initial clinic visit, 25 subjects with chronic subjective tinnitus returned home with a tablet computer and calibrated headphones to complete questionnaires, hearing tests, and tinnitus psychoacoustic testing. We repeatedly characterized loudness discomfort levels and tinnitus matching over a 2-week period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes included intrasubject variability in loudness discomfort levels, tinnitus intensity, and tinnitus acoustic matching over the course of testing. RESULTS: Within-subject variability for all outcome measures could be reduced by approximately 25 to 50% by excluding initial measurements and by focusing only on tinnitus matching attempts where subjects report high confidence in the accuracy of their ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Tinnitus self-report is inherently variable but can converge on reliable values with extended testing. Repeated, self-directed tinnitus assessments may have implications for identifying malingerers. Further, these findings suggest that extending the baseline phase of tinnitus characterizations will increase the statistical power for future studies focused on tinnitus interventions.
Authors: Rachel L Goldberg; Marilyn L Piccirillo; Joyce Nicklaus; Andrew Skillington; Eric Lenze; Thomas L Rodebaugh; Dorina Kallogjeri; Jay F Piccirillo Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Iris H L Maes; Rilana F F Cima; Johannes W Vlaeyen; Lucien J C Anteunis; Manuela A Joore Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: David E Tunkel; Carol A Bauer; Gordon H Sun; Richard M Rosenfeld; Sujana S Chandrasekhar; Eugene R Cunningham; Sanford M Archer; Brian W Blakley; John M Carter; Evelyn C Granieri; James A Henry; Deena Hollingsworth; Fawad A Khan; Scott Mitchell; Ashkan Monfared; Craig W Newman; Folashade S Omole; C Douglas Phillips; Shannon K Robinson; Malcolm B Taw; Richard S Tyler; Richard Waguespack; Elizabeth J Whamond Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Thomas Probst; Rüdiger C Pryss; Berthold Langguth; Josef P Rauschecker; Johannes Schobel; Manfred Reichert; Myra Spiliopoulou; Winfried Schlee; Johannes Zimmermann Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Judy G Kopun; McKenna Turner; Sara E Harris; Aryn M Kamerer; Stephen T Neely; Daniel M Rasetshwane Journal: Am J Audiol Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 1.636
Authors: Z Ellen Peng; Sebastian Waz; Emily Buss; Yi Shen; Virginia Richards; Hari Bharadwaj; G Christopher Stecker; Jordan A Beim; Adam K Bosen; Meredith D Braza; Anna C Diedesch; Claire M Dorey; Andrew R Dykstra; Frederick J Gallun; Raymond L Goldsworthy; Lincoln Gray; Eric C Hoover; Antje Ihlefeld; Thomas Koelewijn; Judy G Kopun; Juraj Mesik; Daniel E Shub; Jonathan H Venezia Journal: J Acoust Soc Am Date: 2022-05 Impact factor: 2.482