Tinnitus Impacts on Speech and Non-speech Stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate how tinnitus affects the processing of speech and non-speech stimuli at the subcortical level. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analytical study. SETTING: Academic, tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Eighteen individuals with tinnitus and 20 controls without tinnitus matched based on their age and sex. All subjects had normal hearing sensitivity. INTERVENTION: Diagnostic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The effect of tinnitus on the parameters of auditory brainstem responses (ABR) to non-speech (click-ABR), and speech (sABR) stimuli was investigated. RESULTS: Latencies of click ABR in waves III, V, and Vn, as well as inter-peak latency (IPL) of I to V were significantly longer in individuals with tinnitus compared with the controls. Individuals with tinnitus demonstrated significantly longer latencies of all sABR waves than the control group. The tinnitus patients also exhibited a significant decrease in the slope of the V-A complex and reduced encoding of the first and higher formants. A significant difference was observed between the two groups in the spectral magnitudes, the first formant frequency range (F1) and a higher frequency region (HF). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that maladaptive neural plasticity resulting from tinnitus can be subcortically measured and affects timing processing of both speech and non-speech stimuli. The findings have been discussed based on models of maladaptive plasticity and the interference of tinnitus as an internal noise in synthesizing speech auditory stimuli.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".