Auditory System Synchronization and Cochlear Function in Patients with Normal
            Hearing With Tinnitus: Comparison of Multiple Feature with Longer Duration and Single
            Feature with Shorter Duration Tinnitus

Makar, Sujoy Kumar; Mukundan, Geetha; Gore, Geeta

doi:10.5935/0946-5448.20170025

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No differences in interpeak latencies were found, which further supports this theory (74,75). Thus, it suggests that patients of the tinnitus group might have had sensorineural hearing loss at higher frequencies which cannot be measured by click ABR (58,60). In addition, in normal hearing tinnitus patients somatosensory triggers such as temporomandibular dysfunction could also modulate auditory brainstem activity causing delayed ABR latencies (13,76,77).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Brainstem evoked auditory potentials in tinnitus: a best-evidence synthesis and meta-analysis

Jacxsens

Pauw

Cardon

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Accumulating evidence suggests a role of the brainstem in tinnitus generation and modulation. Several studies in chronic tinnitus patients have reported latency and amplitude changes of the different peaks of the auditory brainstem response, possibly reflecting neural changes or altered activity. The aim of the systematic review was to assess if alterations within the brainstem of chronic tinnitus patients are reflected in short- and middle-latency auditory evoked potentials (AEPs). Methods A systematic review was performed and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies evaluating short- and middle-latency AEPs in tinnitus patients and controls were included. Two independent reviewers conducted the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was performed using a multivariate meta-analytic model. Results Twenty-seven cross-sectional studies were included. Multivariate meta-analysis revealed that in tinnitus patients with normal hearing, significantly longer latencies of auditory brainstem response (ABR) waves I (SMD = 0.66 ms, p < 0.001), III (SMD = 0.43 ms p < 0.001), and V (SMD = 0.47 ms, p < 0.01) are present. The results regarding possible changes in middle-latency responses (MLRs) and frequency-following responses (FFRs) were inconclusive. Discussion The discovered changes in short-latency AEPs reflect alterations at brainstem level in tinnitus patients. More specifically, the prolonged ABR latencies could possibly be explained by high frequency sensorineural hearing loss, or other modulating factors such as cochlear synaptopathy or somatosensory tinnitus generators. The question whether middle-latency AEP changes, representing subcortical level of the auditory pathway, are present in tinnitus still remains unanswered. Future studies should identify and correctly deal with confounding factors, such as age, gender and the presence of somatosensory tinnitus components.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Brainstem evoked auditory potentials in tinnitus: a best-evidence synthesis and meta-analysis

Jacxsens

Pauw

Cardon

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No differences in interpeak latencies were found, which further supports this theory ( 65 , 66 ). Thus, it suggests that patients of the tinnitus group might have had sensorineural hearing loss at higher frequencies which cannot be measured by click ABR ( 67 , 68 ). In addition, in normal hearing tinnitus patients somatosensory triggers such as temporomandibular dysfunction could also modulate auditory brainstem activity causing delayed ABR latencies ( 13 , 69 , 70 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brainstem evoked auditory potentials in tinnitus: A best-evidence synthesis and meta-analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAccumulating evidence suggests a role of the brainstem in tinnitus generation and modulation. Several studies in chronic tinnitus patients have reported latency and amplitude changes of the different peaks of the auditory brainstem response, possibly reflecting neural changes or altered activity. The aim of the systematic review was to assess if alterations within the brainstem of chronic tinnitus patients are reflected in short- and middle-latency auditory evoked potentials (AEPs).MethodsA systematic review was performed and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies evaluating short- and middle-latency AEPs in tinnitus patients and controls were included. Two independent reviewers conducted the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was performed using a multivariate meta-analytic model.ResultsTwenty-seven cross-sectional studies were included. Multivariate meta-analysis revealed that in tinnitus patients with normal hearing, significantly longer latencies of auditory brainstem response (ABR) waves I (SMD = 0.66 ms, p < 0.001), III (SMD = 0.43 ms, p < 0.001), and V (SMD = 0.47 ms, p < 0.01) are present. The results regarding possible changes in middle-latency responses (MLRs) and frequency-following responses (FFRs) were inconclusive.DiscussionThe discovered changes in short-latency AEPs reflect alterations at brainstem level in tinnitus patients. More specifically, the prolonged ABR latencies could possibly be explained by high frequency sensorineural hearing loss, or other modulating factors such as cochlear synaptopathy or somatosensory tinnitus generators. The question whether middle-latency AEP changes, representing subcortical level of the auditory pathway, are present in tinnitus still remains unanswered. Future studies should identify and correctly deal with confounding factors, such as age, gender and the presence of somatosensory tinnitus components.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021243687, PROSPERO [CRD42021243687].

show abstract

“…It may originate either peripherally or centrally. ABR and OAE can be used to evaluate the function of retrocochlear lesions and outer hair cells, respectively; therefore, they can be candidates for determining the cause of tinnitus [2][3][4]12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is impossible to have a completely independent pathway for each tinnitus subtype; hence, an overlapping pathophysiology for both subtypes should be considered [2,7]. Therefore, many auditory responses have been used to determine the location of tinnitus, and hence, auditory brainstem response (ABR) and otoacoustic emission (OAE) are widely utilized [2][3][4][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Confirmatory Auditory Responses in Unilateral Tinnitus Patients with Normal Hearing

Jeong¹,

Oh²,

Lim³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In patients with unilateral tinnitus with normal hearing, several studies have compared the ipsilateral and contralateral ears; however, few studies have investigated its relationship with the duration of tinnitus. We compared the auditory brainstem response and otoacoustic emission parameters between ipsilateral and contralateral ears in adults with unilateral tinnitus and normal hearing. This retrospective review included 84 patients with unilateral tinnitus and normal hearing who underwent auditory brainstem response and otoacoustic emission; they were categorized according to the duration of tinnitus. The latencies and amplitudes of waves I, III, and V, and V/I ratio of both ears in auditory brainstem response, and the results of distortion-product otoacoustic emission and transient evoked otoacoustic emission were examined. The auditory brainstem response parameters, distortion-product otoacoustic emission parameters, and transient evoked otoacoustic emission parameters between the ipsilateral and contralateral ears along the duration of tinnitus were analyzed. Moreover, the failure rates of both distortion-product otoacoustic emission and transient evoked otoacoustic emission between the ears along with the duration and the effects of the variables on the amplitude and latency of each wave were examined. Although there was little significant difference between the ipsilateral and contralateral ears, laterality seemed to have an effect on wave I latency in the multiple linear regression analysis. The distortion-product otoacoustic emission failure rate of the ipsilateral ear was higher than that of the contralateral ear in all patients. However, there was no remarkable difference between the ears in the distortion-product otoacoustic emission and transient evoked otoacoustic emission parameters throughout the duration. We found that outer hair cells and the distal portion of the cochlear nerve are possible pathologic lesions in tinnitus with normal hearing and cochlear synaptopathy could be suspected. Further studies, including those on inner hair cells and higher central cortex, are needed.

show abstract

Auditory System Synchronization and Cochlear Function in Patients with Normal Hearing With Tinnitus: Comparison of Multiple Feature with Longer Duration and Single Feature with Shorter Duration Tinnitus

Cited by 7 publications

References 12 publications

Brainstem evoked auditory potentials in tinnitus: a best-evidence synthesis and meta-analysis

Brainstem evoked auditory potentials in tinnitus: a best-evidence synthesis and meta-analysis

Brainstem evoked auditory potentials in tinnitus: A best-evidence synthesis and meta-analysis

Analysis of Confirmatory Auditory Responses in Unilateral Tinnitus Patients with Normal Hearing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About