ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Sound-evoked plasticity differentiates tinnitus from non-tinnitus mice.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. 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.
- Application of neurodegenerative disease treatment strategies in tinnitus: mechanisms, translation, and prospects.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Review
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
Introduction: Tinnitus is the perception of non-meaningful sound in the absence of external stimuli. Although tinnitus behavior in animal models is associated with altered central nervous system activity, it is not currently possible to identify tinnitus using neuronal activity alone. In the mouse inferior colliculus (IC), a subpopulation of neurons demonstrates a sustained increase in spontaneous activity after a long-duration sound (LDS). Methods: Here, we use the " Results: Sound-exposed mice showed stronger and shorter tone-evoked responses in the IC compared to unexposed controls, but these differences were not strong predictors of tinnitus. In contrast, in the LDS test, non-tinnitus mice had a significantly stronger suppression in tone-evoked spike rate compared to tinnitus and unexposed control mice. ABR peak amplitudes also revealed robust differences between tinnitus and non-tinnitus mice, with ABR peaks from non-tinnitus mice exhibiting significantly stronger suppression in the LDS test compared to tinnitus and control mice. No significant differences were seen between cohorts in ABR amplitude, latency, wave V:I ratio, wave V:III ratio, I-V intra-peak latency, and I-VI intra-peak latency. We found high-frequency tone stimuli better suited to reveal tinnitus-specific differences for both extracellular IC and ABR recordings. Discussion: We successfully used the LDS test to demonstrate that tinnitus-specific differences in sound-evoked plasticity can be shown using both multi-unit near-field recordings in the IC and non-invasive far-field recordings, providing a foundation for future electrophysiological research into the causes and treatment of 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.