Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25763867›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Altered inhibitory control and increased sensitivity to cross-modal interference in tinnitus during auditory and visual tasks.

Rodrigo Araneda, Anne G De Volder, Naïma Deggouj, Laurent Renier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Combined Bifrontal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Auditory Stroop Training in Chronic Tinnitus.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Tinnitus and cognition: Can load theory help us refine our understanding?Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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.

Rodrigo AranedaInstitute of Neuroscience (IoNS), Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Anne G De VolderInstitute of Neuroscience (IoNS), Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Naïma DeggoujInstitute of Neuroscience (IoNS), Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, Université catholique de Louvain and clinique universitaire St-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
Laurent RenierInstitute of Neuroscience (IoNS), Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
UCLouvain · BECliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tinnitus is the perception of sound in the absence of external stimulus. Currently, the pathophysiology of tinnitus is not fully understood, but recent studies indicate that alterations in the brain involve non-auditory areas, including the prefrontal cortex. In experiment 1, we used a go/no-go paradigm to evaluate the target detection speed and the inhibitory control in tinnitus participants (TP) and control subjects (CS), both in unimodal and bimodal conditions in the auditory and visual modalities. We also tested whether the sound frequency used for target and distractors affected the performance. We observed that TP were slower and made more false alarms than CS in all unimodal auditory conditions. TP were also slower than CS in the bimodal conditions. In addition, when comparing the response times in bimodal and auditory unimodal conditions, the expected gain in bimodal conditions was present in CS, but not in TP when tinnitus-matched frequency sounds were used as targets. In experiment 2, we tested the sensitivity to cross-modal interference in TP during auditory and visual go/no-go tasks where each stimulus was preceded by an irrelevant pre-stimulus in the untested modality (e.g. high frequency auditory pre-stimulus in visual no/no-go condition). We observed that TP had longer response times than CS and made more false alarms in all conditions. In addition, the highest false alarm rate occurred in TP when tinnitus-matched/high frequency sounds were used as pre-stimulus. We conclude that the inhibitory control is altered in TP and that TP are abnormally sensitive to cross-modal interference, reflecting difficulties to ignore irrelevant stimuli. The fact that the strongest interference effect was caused by tinnitus-like auditory stimulation is consistent with the hypothesis according to which such stimulations generate emotional responses that affect cognitive processing in TP. We postulate that executive functions deficits play a key-role in the perception and maintenance of tinnitus.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAdultAgedAuditory PerceptionBrainCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTinnitusVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25763867
PMCPMC4357462
OpenAlexW2003814101

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.