Modulation of Auditory Cortex Activity in Salicylate‐Induced Tinnitus Rats via Deep Brain Stimulation of the Inferior Colliculus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tinnitus, a self-reported perceptual disorder, is currently believed to arise from maladaptive plasticity due to reduced sensory input. While deep brain stimulation (DBS) has shown promise in alleviating tinnitus-related behaviors, its effects on neuronal activity remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the spontaneous firing rates (SFRs) of the primary auditory cortex (A1) before and after DBS of the external cortex of the inferior colliculus (ECIC) in a rat model of tinnitus. METHODS: Tinnitus was induced in rats through sodium salicylate injections for 14 consecutive days, while the control group received normal saline injections over the same period. We conducted tinnitus and hearing assessments using the gap pre-pulse inhibition of the acoustic startle (GPIAS) and pre-pulse inhibition (PPI) tests. From day 14, both groups underwent DBS of the ECIC and single unit recordings from the A1. RESULTS: Before ECIC stimulation, A1 neurons in rats with potential tinnitus exhibited significantly higher spontaneous activity compared to controls. Following ECIC stimulation, the SFRs in the group displaying abnormal GPIAS responses significantly decreased, and the difference between the tinnitus and control groups was no longer significant. Additionally, inter-spike interval (ISI) analysis revealed a higher frequency of short ISIs (<5 ms) in rats with potential tinnitus, which decreased after DBS, aligning with values observed in the control group. CONCLUSION: ECIC stimulation effectively modulates A1 hyperactivity, highlighting its role in tinnitus pathophysiology. These findings warrant further research into ECIC's role in tinnitus regulation, which could inform future therapeutic interventions and enhance mathematical models of tinnitus mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".