Investigation of Listening Effort in Tinnitus Patients by Providing Similar Peripheral Auditory Function With Control Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have investigated listening effort in tinnitus patients compared to healthy individuals. These studies reported similar pure tone hearing thresholds between groups but did not investigate possible peripheral auditory dysfunction, which could affect the central auditory system and increase listening effort even when hearing thresholds are within the normal hearing range. This study aimed to investigate the presence of listening effort in tinnitus patients by controlling for peripheral auditory function (PAF). METHODS: This study included 16 chronic tinnitus patients and 23 matched healthy controls, both with normal hearing thresholds. The subjects were assessed using 0.125-20 kHz pure-tone audiometry, a visual analogue scale (VAS), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), the matrix test, auditory brainstem response (ABR), and electroencephalography (EEG). EEG alpha band activity was recorded from parietal electrodes (P3, P4, Pz). RESULTS: The increase in alpha band power during the encoding phase of sentence presentation in tinnitus patients was less than that in the control group. We found higher VAS scores in tinnitus participants. We did not find significant differences in matrix test scores, ABR amplitude, or absolute latency values between groups. The EEG alpha power change and THI did not show a significant correlation. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the listening effort of tinnitus patients and healthy controls using EEG alpha band power while controlling for hearing and PAF. Tinnitus patients may expend more listening-related effort despite having similar PAF to the control group.
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".