Role of attention in the generation and modulation of tinnitus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural mechanisms that detect changes in the auditory environment appear to rely on processes that predict sensory state. Here we propose that in tinnitus there is a disparity between what the brain predicts it should be hearing (this prediction based on aberrant neural activity occurring in cortical frequency regions affected by hearing loss and underlying the tinnitus percept) and the acoustic information that is delivered to the brain by the damaged cochlea. The disparity between the predicted and delivered inputs activates a system for auditory attention that facilitates through subcortical neuromodulatory systems neuroplastic changes that contribute to the generation of tinnitus. We review behavioral and functional brain imaging evidence for persisting auditory attention in tinnitus and present a qualitative model for how attention operates in normal hearing and may be triggered in tinnitus accompanied by hearing loss. The viewpoint has implications for the role of cochlear pathology in tinnitus, for neural plasticity and the contribution of forebrain neuromodulatory systems in tinnitus, and for tinnitus management and treatment.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it