Comparing Tinnitus Tuning Curves and Psychoacoustic Tuning Curves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tinnitus masking patterns have long been known to differ from those used for masking external sound. In the present study, we compared the shape of tinnitus tuning curves (TTCs) to psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs), the latter using as a target, an external sound that mimics the tinnitus characteristics. A secondary goal was to compare sound levels required to mask tinnitus to those required to mask tinnitus-mimicking sounds. The TTC, PTC, audiometric thresholds, tinnitus pitch, and level matching results of 32 tinnitus patients were analyzed. Narrowband noise maskers were used for both PTC and TTC procedures. Patients were categorized into three groups based on a combination of individual PTC-TTC results. Our findings indicate that in 41% of cases, the PTC was sharp (V shape), but the TTC showed a flat configuration, suggesting that the tinnitus-related activity in that subgroup does not behave as a regular stimulus-induced activity. In 30% of cases, V-shape PTC and TTC were found, indicating that the tinnitus-related activity may share common properties with stimulus-induced activity. For a masker centered at the tinnitus frequency, the tinnitus was more difficult to mask than the mimicking tone in 72% of patients; this was particularly true for the subset with V-shape PTCs and flat TTCs. These results may have implications for subtyping tinnitus and acoustic therapies, in particular those targeting the tinnitus frequency.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".