Trial reportBrain stimulation
Neural activity during attentional conflict predicts reduction in tinnitus perception following rTMS.
Trial report in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on chronic tinnitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2020Pooled it
- RTMS parameters in tinnitus trials: a systematic review.Scientific reports · 2019Pooled it
- Case Report: Repeated courses of low-frequency rTMS for refractory tinnitus: an N-of-1 study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Applications of the Stroop Paradigm in Tinnitus: a Scoping Review.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of Psychometric Validation for Subjective Tinnitus Outcome Measures Assessing Acute Treatment Effects.Otology & neurotology open · 2025Review
- A Scoping Review of the Role of Attention in Tinnitus Management.Seminars in hearing · 2024Review
- Reduced Interference and Serial Dependency Effects for Naming in Older but Not Younger Adults after 1 Hz rTMS of Right Pars Triangularis.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Article
- Implications of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as a Treatment Modality for Tinnitus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a potential treatment approach for cannabis use disorder.Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry · 2021Review
- Emerging Topics in the Behavioral Neuroscience of Tinnitus.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2021Article
- The Neural Mechanisms of Tinnitus: A Perspective From Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Association of Central Noninvasive Brain Stimulation Interventions With Efficacy and Safety in Tinnitus Management: A Meta-analysis.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSubjective idiopathic tinnitus is an intrusive, distracting, and potentially disabling disorder characterized by phantom perception of sounds. Although tinnitus has no approved pharmacologic treatment, recent evidence supports the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to alleviate tinnitus symptoms. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Repetitive TMS delivered over the middle superior temporal gyrus (STG) may alter ratings of tinnitus awareness and annoyance more than loudness due to change in attentional processing. STG has reciprocal connections to regions of the prefrontal cortex that mediate attention. To probe the hypothesized influence of STG stimulation on attention, a subset of patients with tinnitus enrolled in an rTMS clinical trial [n = 12, 9 male, mean (sd) age = 49 (15) years] underwent an attentional conflict task before and after rTMS treatment in a repeated-measures functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study.
methodsThe Multi-Source Interference Task (MSIT), a Stroop-based visual attentional conflict fMRI task, was used to map participants' neural processing of attentional conflict prior to rTMS intervention (Baseline) and after three rTMS intervention arms: Sham, 1 Hz, and 10 Hz (four sessions per arm, 1800 pulses per session, delivered @110% of the motor threshold over the posterior superior temporal gyrus).
resultsAll measures of tinnitus severity (awareness, loudness, and annoyance) improved with 1 Hz rTMS intervention; however, the greatest and most robust changes were observed for ratings of tinnitus awareness (mean 16% reduction in severity from Baseline, p < 0.01). The MSIT elicited a similar pattern of neural activation among tinnitus participants at Baseline compared to an independent sample of 43 healthy comparison adults (r = 0.801, p = 0.001). Linear regression with bootstrap resampling showed that greater recruitment of bilateral prefrontal and bilateral parietal regions by MSIT at Baseline corresponded with poorer treatment response. Individual regions' activities explained 37-67% variance in participant treatment response, with left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex's MSIT activity at Baseline explaining the greatest reduction in tinnitus awareness following 1 Hz stimulation. Although left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity at Baseline also predicted reduction in tinnitus loudness and annoyance (∼50% variance explained), these symptoms were more strongly predicted by right middle occipital cortex (∼70% variance explained) - suggesting that the neural predictors of symptom-specific treatment outcomes may be dissociable.
conclusionThese candidate neural reactivity markers of treatment response have potential clinical value in identifying tinnitus sufferers who would or would not therapeutically benefit from rTMS intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.