A proof-of-concept study comparing tinnitus and neural connectivity changes following multisensory perceptual training with and without a low-dose of fluoxetine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. This proof-of-concept study investigated a method of multisensory perceptual training for tinnitus, and whether a short, low-dose administration of fluoxetine enhanced training effects and changed neural connectivity.Methods. A double-blind, randomized placebo controlled design with 20 participants (17 male, 3 female, mean age = 57.1 years) involved 30 min daily computer-based, multisensory training (matching visual, auditory and tactile stimuli to perception of tinnitus) for 20 days, and random allocation to take 20 mg fluoxetine or placebo daily. Behavioral measures of tinnitus and correlations between pairs of a priori regions of interest (ROIs), obtained using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI), were performed before and after the training.Results. Significant changes in ratings of tinnitus loudness, annoyance, and problem were observed with training. No statistically significant changes in Tinnitus Functional Index, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory or Depression Anxiety Stress Scales were found with training. Fluoxetine did not alter any of the behavioural outcomes of training compared to placebo. Significant changes in connectivity between ROIs were identified with training; sensory and attention neural network ROI changes correlated with significant tinnitus rating changes. Rs-fMRI results suggested that the direction of functional connectivity changes between auditory and non-auditory networks, with training and fluoxetine, were opposite to the direction of those changes with multisensory training and placebo.Conclusions. Improvements in tinnitus measures were correlated with changes in sensory and attention networks. The results provide preliminary evidence for changes in rs-fMRI accompanying a multisensory training method in persons with 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".