Observational studyJournal of integrative neuroscience2024
Optimization of the Operant Silent Gap-in-Noise Detection Paradigm in Humans.
Observational study in Journal of integrative neuroscience, 2024. 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.
- An Insight into Role of Auditory Brainstem in Tinnitus: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Assessments.Audiology research · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the auditory domain, temporal resolution is the ability to respond to rapid changes in the envelope of a sound over time. Silent gap-in-noise detection tests assess temporal resolution. Whether temporal resolution is impaired in tinnitus and whether those tests are useful for identifying the condition is still debated. We have revisited these questions by assessing the silent gap-in-noise detection performance of human participants.
methodsParticipants were seventy-one young adults with normal hearing, separated into preliminary, tinnitus and matched-control groups. A preliminary group (n = 18) was used to optimise the silent gap-in-noise detection two-alternative forced-choice paradigm by examining the effect of the position and the salience of the gap. Temporal resolution was tested in case-control observational study of tinnitus (n = 20) and matched-control (n = 33) groups using the previously optimized silent gap-in-noise behavioral paradigm. These two groups were also tested using silent gap prepulse inhibition of the auditory startle reflex (GPIAS) and Auditory Brain Responses (ABRs).
resultsIn the preliminary group, reducing the predictability and saliency of the silent gap increased detection thresholds and reduced gap detection sensitivity (slope of the psychometric function). In the case-control study, tinnitus participants had higher gap detection thresholds than controls for narrowband noise stimuli centred at 2 and 8 kHz, with no differences in GPIAS or ABRs. In addition, ABR data showed latency differences across the different tinnitus subgroups stratified by subject severity.
conclusionsOperant silent gap-in-noise detection is impaired in tinnitus when the paradigm is optimized to reduce the predictability and saliency of the silent gap and to avoid the ceiling effect. Our behavioral paradigm can distinguish tinnitus and control groups suggesting that temporal resolution is impaired in tinnitus. However, in young adults with normal hearing, the paradigm is unable to objectively identify tinnitus at the individual level. The GPIAS paradigm was unable to differentiate the tinnitus and control groups, suggesting that operant, as opposed to reflexive, silent gap-in-noise detection is a more sensitive measure for objectively identifying tinnitus.
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.