Multisensory attention training for treatment of tinnitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tinnitus is the conscious perception of sound with no physical sound source. Some models of tinnitus pathophysiology suggest that networks associated with attention, memory, distress and multisensory experience are involved in tinnitus perception. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a multisensory attention training paradigm which used audio, visual, and somatosensory stimulation would reduce tinnitus. Eighteen participants with predominantly unilateral chronic tinnitus were randomized between two groups receiving 20 daily sessions of either integration (attempting to reduce salience to tinnitus by binding with multisensory stimuli) or attention diversion (multisensory stimuli opposite side to tinnitus) training. The training resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in Tinnitus Functional Index and Tinnitus Severity Numeric Scale scores and improved attentional abilities. No statistically significant improvements in tinnitus were found between the training groups. This study demonstrated that a short period of multisensory attention training reduced unilateral tinnitus, but directing attention toward or away from the tinnitus side did not differentiate this effect.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".