Use of bedside sound generators by patients with tinnitus-related sleeping difficulty: which sounds are preferred and why?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONCLUSIONS: Most tinnitus patients who have difficulty sleeping experience some improvement in sleep after short-term use of bedside sound generators (BSSGs), although this study does not allow conclusions to be drawn as to how much other factors contribute. Many patients seem to find BSSGs helpful in reducing autonomic arousal. Further research is needed, but these findings raise the possibility that the emotional effects of sound enrichment have an important role to play in improving sleep among tinnitus patients. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated which sounds out of the options available on BSSGs are commonly chosen by patients and the reasons behind these choices. It also aimed to provide an indication as to whether BSSGs improve sleep quality in the short term. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of 39 tinnitus clinic patients who made a subjective complaint of sleep disturbance took part in the study. All participants were given a Naturecare BSSG to use at night. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and a semi-structured interview were used as outcome measures. RESULTS: Among the 35 participants who attended for follow-up there was a significant improvement in PSQI scores (p=0.001). 'Brook' and 'birds' were the most popular sounds, while 'white noise' proved the least popular. Most BSSG users listened to one sound only and most said that they chose their sound because of a pleasant emotional effect. A minority gave the quality of sound or its perceived effect on tinnitus as a reason for their choice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".