MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020252191 · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2015.04.011

Evidence for differential modulation of primary and nonprimary auditory cortex by forward masking in tinnitus

2015· article· en· W2020252191 on OpenAlexafffund
Larry E. Roberts, Daniel J. Bosnyak, Ian C. Bruce, Phillip E. Gander, Brandon T. Paul

Bibliographic record

VenueHearing Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTinnitusAudiologyAuditory cortexTonotopyMasking (illustration)PsychologyPerceptAuditory maskingElectrophysiologyHearing lossNeuroscienceMedicinePerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been proposed that tinnitus is generated by aberrant neural activity that develops among neurons in tonotopic of regions of primary auditory cortex (A1) affected by hearing loss, which is also the frequency region where tinnitus percepts localize (Eggermont and Roberts 2004; Roberts et al., 2010, 2013). These models suggest (1) that differences between tinnitus and control groups of similar age and audiometric function should depend on whether A1 is probed in tinnitus frequency region (TFR) or below it, and (2) that brain responses evoked from A1 should track changes in the tinnitus percept when residual inhibition (RI) is induced by forward masking. We tested these predictions by measuring (128-channel EEG) the sound-evoked 40-Hz auditory steady-state response (ASSR) known to localize tonotopically to neural sources in A1. For comparison the N1 transient response localizing to distributed neural sources in nonprimary cortex (A2) was also studied. When tested under baseline conditions where tinnitus subjects would have heard their tinnitus, ASSR responses were larger in a tinnitus group than in controls when evoked by 500 Hz probes while the reverse was true for tinnitus and control groups tested with 5 kHz probes, confirming frequency-dependent group differences in this measure. On subsequent trials where RI was induced by masking (narrow band noise centered at 5 kHz), ASSR amplitude increased in the tinnitus group probed at 5 kHz but not in the tinnitus group probed at 500 Hz. When collapsed into a single sample tinnitus subjects reporting comparatively greater RI depth and duration showed comparatively larger ASSR increases after masking regardless of probe frequency. Effects of masking on ASSR amplitude in the control groups were completely reversed from those in the tinnitus groups, with no change seen to 5 kHz probes but ASSR increases to 500 Hz probes even though the masking sound contained no energy at 500 Hz (an "off-frequency" masking effect). In contrast to these findings for the ASSR, N1 amplitude was larger in tinnitus than control groups at both probe frequencies under baseline conditions, decreased after masking in all conditions, and did not relate to RI. These results suggest that aberrant neural activity occurring in the TFR of A1 underlies tinnitus and its modulation during RI. They indicate further that while neural changes occur in A2 in tinnitus, these changes do not reflect the tinnitus percept. Models for tinnitus and forward masking are described that integrate these findings within a common framework.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.382
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.049 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHearing ResearchSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207