A Qualitative Study on Factors Modulating Tinnitus Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".