Literature DB >> 6466204

A comparison of variability among measurements of subjective tinnitus and objective stimuli.

E M Burns.   

Abstract

8 patients with subjective tinnitus were trained in pitch-matching, loudness-matching, and simultaneous-masking tasks using narrow-band noise and/or pure-tone stimuli. Extensive pitch-matching, loudness-matching and masking measurements were then obtained for their tinnitus, after which the same measurements were obtained for objective stimuli which approximated the frequency and intensity of the tinnitus. Variability for pitch and loudness matching to tinnitus was extremely large relative to the same measurements for objective stimuli. This was particularly true for pitch-matching where even the most consistent patients showed variability for matches to their tinnitus which was an order of magnitude greater than for matches to objective stimuli in the same frequency region. No evidence of frequency-specific masking of tinnitus was seen in any of the patients although such evidence was obtained for the masking of objective stimuli. The results suggest that the large variability in matches to tinnitus, and the lack of normal frequency-specific masking of tinnitus in these patients may reflect interactions at levels higher than the end-organ rather than a degradation in peripheral auditory function.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6466204     DOI: 10.3109/00206098409081535

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiology        ISSN: 0020-6091


  14 in total

1.  Individual Reliability of the Standard Clinical Method vs Patient-Centered Tinnitus Likeness Rating for Assessment of Tinnitus Pitch and Loudness Matching.

Authors:  Sylvie Hébert
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 6.223

2.  Does a pitch rating method converge on the frequencies within tonal stimuli?

Authors:  Jennifer J Lentz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Reversing pathological neural activity using targeted plasticity.

Authors:  Navzer D Engineer; Jonathan R Riley; Jonathan D Seale; Will A Vrana; Jai A Shetake; Sindhu P Sudanagunta; Michael S Borland; Michael P Kilgard
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Elevated fusiform cell activity in the dorsal cochlear nucleus of chinchillas with psychophysical evidence of tinnitus.

Authors:  T J Brozoski; C A Bauer; D M Caspary
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2002-03-15       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  A Bayesian perspective on tinnitus pitch matching.

Authors:  Garnett P McMillan; Emily J Thielman; Krystyn Wypych; James A Henry
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 6.  Maladaptive neural synchrony in tinnitus: origin and restoration.

Authors:  Jos J Eggermont; Peter A Tass
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 4.003

7.  Changes in the response properties of inferior colliculus neurons relating to tinnitus.

Authors:  Joel I Berger; Ben Coomber; Tobias T Wells; Mark N Wallace; Alan R Palmer
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 4.003

Review 8.  A scientific cognitive-behavioral model of tinnitus: novel conceptualizations of tinnitus distress.

Authors:  Laurence McKenna; Lucy Handscomb; Derek J Hoare; Deborah A Hall
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2014-10-06       Impact factor: 4.003

9.  Psychoacoustic assessment to improve tinnitus diagnosis.

Authors:  Charles-Édouard Basile; Philippe Fournier; Sean Hutchins; Sylvie Hébert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Neural changes accompanying tinnitus following unilateral acoustic trauma in the guinea pig.

Authors:  Ben Coomber; Joel I Berger; Victoria L Kowalkowski; Trevor M Shackleton; Alan R Palmer; Mark N Wallace
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2014-04-05       Impact factor: 3.386

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.