ArticleCoDAS2025
Response time, amplitude, and neural auditory maintenance in individuals with tinnitus: a comparative study.
Article in CoDAS, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo verify and compare the response time, amplitude, and neural auditory maintenance of the central auditory pathway in subjects with and without tinnitus disorder.
methodsThis is an analytical, cross-sectional, and quantitative study approved by the Research Ethics Committee. The responses of Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potentials (LLAEP) with verbal stimuli were compared between 16 subjects with tinnitus disorder (Study Group - SG) and 12 subjects without tinnitus (Control Group - CG). The neural response time was evaluated by the latency of the P1, N1, P2, N2, and P300 potentials. The amplitude of these potentials was also analyzed. Neural response maintenance was verified through the duration values of the P300 component. The results were compared between the groups, considering a significance level of 5%.
resultsIn the comparison between the groups regarding the latency and amplitude values of the cortical potentials (P1, N1, P2, and N2), no statistically significant differences were observed (p>0.05). However, concerning the latency, amplitude, and duration of the P300 component between the groups, a statistically significant difference was observed for the latency variable, which was greater for individuals with tinnitus disorder (p<0.05).
conclusionIndividuals with tinnitus disorder have a longer neural response time for the P300 component, suggesting disorganization in central auditory processing.
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.