Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24349414›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2013

Psychoacoustic assessment to improve tinnitus diagnosis.

Charles-Édouard Basile, Philippe Fournier, Sean Hutchins, Sylvie Hébert

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Emerging Topics in the Behavioral Neuroscience of Tinnitus.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Animal models of subjective tinnitus.Neural plasticity · 2014
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Charles-Édouard BasileSchool of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada ; International Laboratory for Research on Brain, Music, and Sound (BRAMS), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada ; Centre de recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal (CRIUGM), Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Philippe FournierSchool of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada ; International Laboratory for Research on Brain, Music, and Sound (BRAMS), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada ; Centre de recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal (CRIUGM), Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Sean HutchinsInternational Laboratory for Research on Brain, Music, and Sound (BRAMS), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Sylvie HébertSchool of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada ; International Laboratory for Research on Brain, Music, and Sound (BRAMS), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada ; Centre de recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal (CRIUGM), Montréal, Québec, Canada.
International Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound Research · CAInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis of tinnitus relies on self-report. Psychoacoustic measurements of tinnitus pitch and loudness are essential for assessing claims and discriminating true from false ones. For this reason, the quantification of tinnitus remains a challenging research goal. We aimed to: (1) assess the precision of a new tinnitus likeness rating procedure with a continuous-pitch presentation method, controlling for music training, and (2) test whether tinnitus psychoacoustic measurements have the sensitivity and specificity required to detect people faking tinnitus. Musicians and non-musicians with tinnitus, as well as simulated malingerers without tinnitus, were tested. Most were retested several weeks later. Tinnitus pitch matching was first assessed using the likeness rating method: pure tones from 0.25 to 16 kHz were presented randomly to participants, who had to rate the likeness of each tone to their tinnitus, and to adjust its level from 0 to 100 dB SPL. Tinnitus pitch matching was then assessed with a continuous-pitch method: participants had to match the pitch of their tinnitus to an external tone by moving their finger across a touch-sensitive strip, which generated a continuous pure tone from 0.5 to 20 kHz in 1-Hz steps. The predominant tinnitus pitch was consistent across both methods for both musicians and non-musicians, although musicians displayed better external tone pitch matching abilities. Simulated malingerers rated loudness much higher than did the other groups with a high degree of specificity (94.4%) and were unreliable in loudness (not pitch) matching from one session to the other. Retest data showed similar pitch matching responses for both methods for all participants. In conclusion, tinnitus pitch and loudness reliably correspond to the tinnitus percept, and psychoacoustic loudness matches are sensitive and specific to the presence of tinnitus.

Indexed as

Loudness PerceptionPitch DiscriminationPsychoacousticsAdultDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTinnitus

Identifiers

PMID24349414
PMCPMC3861445
OpenAlexW2029079779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.