ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2022
Comparison of two behavioral tests for tinnitus assessment in mice.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing precision ear medicine: leveraging animal models for disease insights and therapeutic innovations.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025Review
- Sound-evoked plasticity differentiates tinnitus from non-tinnitus mice.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Editorial: Bridging the gap between the different pillars of tinnitus research.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Identifying tinnitus in mice by tracking the motion of body markers in response to an acoustic startle.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal research focused on chronic tinnitus associated with noise-induced hearing loss can be expensive and time-consuming as a result of the behavioral training required. Although there exist a number of behavioral tests for tinnitus; there have been few formal direct comparisons of these tests. Here, we evaluated animals in two different tinnitus assessment methods. CBA/CaJ mice were trained in an operant conditioning, active avoidance (AA) test, and a reflexive, gap-induced pre-pulse inhibition of acoustic startle (GPIAS) test, or both. Tinnitus was induced in awake mice by unilateral continuous sound exposure using a 2-kHz- or
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.