The thalamus and tinnitus: Bridging the gap between animal data and findings in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neuronal mechanisms underlying tinnitus are yet to be revealed. Tinnitus, an auditory phantom sensation, used to be approached as a purely auditory domain symptom. More recently, the modulatory impact of non-auditory brain regions on the percept and burden of tinnitus are explored. The thalamus is uniquely situated to facilitate the communication between auditory and non-auditory subcortical and cortical structures. Traditionally, animal models of tinnitus have focussed on subcortical auditory structures, and research with human participants has been concerned with cortical activity in auditory and non-auditory areas. Recently, both research fields have investigated the connectivity between subcortical and cortical regions and between auditory and non-auditory areas. We show that even though the different fields employ different methods to investigate the activity and connectivity of brain areas, there is consistency in the results on tinnitus between these different approaches. This consistency between human and animals research is observed for tinnitus with peripherally instigated hearing damage, and for results obtained with salicylate and noise-induced tinnitus. The thalamus integrates input from limbic and prefrontal areas and modulates auditory activity via its connections to both subcortical and cortical auditory areas. Reported altered activity and connectivity of the auditory, prefrontal, and limbic regions suggest a more systemic approach is necessary to understand the origins and impact 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".