MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884071122 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000642

A Qualitative Study on Factors Modulating Tinnitus Experience

2018· article· en· W2884071122 on OpenAlexafffund
Emilia M. G. Colagrosso, Philippe Fournier, Elizabeth M. Fitzpatrick, Sylvie Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioInternational Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTinnitusPsychologyDistressAudiologyLoudnessAnnoyanceMoodClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: It is well recognized that tinnitus can severely interfere with important aspects of life such as sleep, concentration abilities, social activities, and mood. However, the impact of tinnitus may vary greatly from one individual to another, with some being severely affected and others only experiencing a slight handicap. Information from participants' experiences with tinnitus could help explain such variability. The full experience of living with tinnitus from a patient's perspective has been under-investigated, especially in comparison with the large and extensive body of qualitative research on hearing loss. This study aims to contribute to fill this gap and assess participants' experience of living with tinnitus. DESIGN: As part of a larger mixed design study, this inquiry used qualitative analyses to investigate participant's experiences with tinnitus. Twenty-seven tinnitus participants of different ages, sexes, audiometric profiles, and tinnitus severities were invited to discuss their tinnitus through semistructured interviews and journal entries. The interviews took place 1 month after participants completed a 3-week trial period with tinnitus maskers. RESULTS: The findings were grouped into three main themes: participants' appraisal of their tinnitus, factors modulating tinnitus experience, and consequences of tinnitus. Regarding participants' appraisal of their tinnitus, a dissociation between the tinnitus sensation (pitch, loudness) and tinnitus experience (annoyance/distress) was reported. Factors modulating tinnitus experience were classified as environmental factors and individual-specific factors, which were further divided into soundscape and other environmental factors for the former and attentional focus, stress level, physical state, fatigue, and auditory effort for the latter. Consequences of tinnitus included distraction, disrupted mental health and mood, headaches, fatigue, sleep disturbances, hearing difficulties, disrupted social life, and frustration. CONCLUSIONS: Two of the main themes (participants' appraisal of their tinnitus and consequences of tinnitus) were consistent with findings from a few previous qualitative studies. Factors modulating tinnitus experience also emerged as a prominent theme. Indeed, participants described a plethora of factors that affected their experiences of tinnitus. On the basis of these findings, an attentional model is proposed to account for how these factors might modulate the effects of tinnitus.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations41
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207