ArticleHearing research2022
Electric hearing and tinnitus suppression by noninvasive ear stimulation.
Article in Hearing research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrical Ear Canal Stimulation as a Therapeutic Approach for Tinnitus-A Proof of Concept Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
While noninvasive brain stimulation is convenient and cost effective, its utility is limited by the substantial distance between scalp electrodes and their intended neural targets in the head. The tympanic membrane, or eardrum, is a thin flap of skin deep in an orifice of the head that may serve as a port for improved efficiency of noninvasive stimulation. Here we chose the cochlea as a target because it resides in the densest bone of the skull and is adjacent to many deep-brain-stimulation structures. We also tested the hypothesis that noninvasive electric stimulation of the cochlea may restore neural activities that are missing in acoustic stimulation. We placed an electrode in the ear canal or on the tympanic membrane in 25 human adults (10 females) and compared their stimulation efficiency by characterizing the electrically-evoked auditory sensation. Relative to ear canal stimulation, tympanic membrane stimulation was four times more likely to produce an auditory percept, required eight times lower electric current to reach the threshold and produced two-to-four times more linear suprathreshold responses. We further measured tinnitus suppression in 14 of the 25 subjects who had chronic tinnitus. Compared with ear canal stimulation, tympanic membrane stimulation doubled both the probability (22% vs. 55%) and the amount (-15% vs. -34%) of tinnitus suppression. These findings extended previous work comparing evoked perception and tinnitus suppression between electrodes placed in the ear canal and on the scalp. Together, the previous and present results suggest that the efficiency of conventional scalp-based noninvasive electric stimulation can be improved by at least one order of magnitude via tympanic membrane stimulation. This increased efficiency is most likely due to the shortened distance between the electrode placed on the tympanic membrane and the targeted cochlea. The present findings have implications for the management of tinnitus by offering a potential alternative to interventions using invasive electrical stimulation such as cochlear implantation, or other non-invasive transcranial electrical stimulation methods.
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.