ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2019
Unpleasantness of Amplified Environmental Sound Used in Tinnitus Sound Therapy: A Preliminary Study of Clinical Assessment.
Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Status and Trends in mHealth-Based Research for Treatment and Intervention in Tinnitus: Bibliometric and Comparative Product Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- Sense and Sensibility: A Review of the Behavioral Neuroscience of Tinnitus Sound Therapy and a New Typology.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn this study, our aim was to use environmental sounds amplified in the frequency region corresponding to the tinnitus frequency of individual patients and apply them as sound therapy in tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT). In this pilot study, we 1) investigated the unpleasantness of processed environmental sounds using the amplification, attenuation, and removal in different frequency regions; 2) compared the unpleasantness of processed sounds for older and younger groups of participants; and 3) determined the amplification level appropriate for a clinical test. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe processed the sound of a river with three types of modification (amplified, attenuated, and notched) at a one-octave width of seven central frequencies, in the range 250-8000 Hz. Amplified and attenuated sounds were processed with five positive gains (+6, +12, +15.6, +18, and +20 dB) and two negative gains (-6 and -12 dB). Twenty-three older participants and 23 younger participants rated the unpleasantness of sounds using a visual analog scale.
resultsWe found that, in the older group, there was no difference in unpleasantness among the three modifications. Older participants rated the level of unpleasantness as lower than younger participants for processed sounds in the high-frequency region. There were no marked differences among the amplification levels in the group of older participants.
conclusionBased on the results, we decided that our clinical study would target older patients who had a tinnitus frequency over 4000 Hz and would compare the effect of an amplified sound with a 20 dB gain at the frequency corresponding to individual tinnitus with notched sound.
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.