Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To elucidate the role of auditory cortex in tinnitus. METHOD: Neurophysiological findings in cat auditory cortex following noise trauma or the application of salicylate and quinine, all expected to induce tinnitus, were reviewed. Those findings were interpreted in the context of what is expected from studies in humans, specifically in the brains of people with tinnitus. RESULTS: Tinnitus is an auditory percept to which several central structures in the auditory system may contribute. Because the central auditory system has both feed-forward connections and feedback connections, it can be described as a set of nested loops. Once these loops become activated in a pathological fashion, as they may be in tinnitus, it becomes hard to assign importance to each contributing structure. Strongly interconnected networks, that is, neural assemblies, may be determining the quality of the tinnitus percept. CONCLUSION: It is unlikely that tinnitus is the expression of a set of independently firing neurons, and more likely that it is the result of a pathologically increased synchrony between sets of neurons. There is clear evidence for this from both evoked potentials and from neuron-pair synchrony measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".