ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Subjective tinnitus patients with normal pure-tone hearing still suffer more informational masking in the noisy environment.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The daily auditory environments of people with tinnitus.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subjective tinnitus patients experience more hearing difficulties than normal peers in complex hearing environments, even though most of these patients have normal pure-tone hearing thresholds. Using speech recognition tasks under different masking conditions can provide insight into whether the effects of tinnitus are lateralized and the mechanisms behind the effects. By simulating sound field recordings, we obtain a target speech sentence that can be perceived as presented on one side and noise or speech masking with or without spatial separation from it. Our study used the virtual sound field technique to investigate the difference in speech recognition ability between chronic subjective tinnitus patients and a normal-hearing control group under the four masking conditions (speech-spectrum noise masking or two-talker speech masking, with or without perceived spatial separation). Experiment 1 showed no differences for target speech perceived location (left or right), which rules out a lateralization of the effect of tinnitus patients. Experiment 2 further found that although tinnitus patients had weaker performance than normal people in very complex auditory scenarios, when the spatial cue of the target speech exists, they can make good use of this cue to make up for the original processing disadvantage and achieve a similar performance as the normal-hearing group. In addition, the current study distinguished the effects of informational masking and energetic masking on speech recognition in patients with tinnitus and normal hearing. The results suggest that the impact of tinnitus on speech recognition in patients is more likely to occur in the auditory center rather than the periphery.
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.