ArticleBrain and behavior2025
Revealing Pathological Auditory Central Inhibition in Tinnitus Using Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials Responses to Contralateral Acoustic Stimulation.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2025. 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.
- Application of neurodegenerative disease treatment strategies in tinnitus: mechanisms, translation, and prospects.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Review
- Revealing Pathological Auditory Central Inhibition in Tinnitus Using Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials Responses to Contralateral Acoustic Stimulation.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test the hypothesis that auditory central inhibition is reduced in tinnitus patients and explore whether improving this inhibitory function could alleviate tinnitus severity.
methodsWe recruited 16 chronic tinnitus patients and 14 age-matched healthy controls, all of whom exhibited clinically normal audiometric thresholds. Electroacoustic measures, cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP), were used to assess neural activity. Contralateral noise stimulation was employed to evaluate contralateral suppression (CS) of CAEP amplitude.
resultsSignificant differences in CS of N100 and P300 amplitude were observed between tinnitus patients and healthy controls, indicating impaired central inhibition in tinnitus. After 3 months of tinnitus masking therapy, patients showed significant improvements in CS of N100 and P300 amplitudes, which correlated with a reduction in tinnitus handicap inventory scores. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis confirmed that changes in CS, especially in the P300 amplitude, reliably reflect treatment efficacy.
conclusionsThis study highlights the critical role of central auditory inhibition in tinnitus pathophysiology and suggests that neurophysiological markers, particularly changes in CS of P300 amplitude, could serve as reliable biomarkers for evaluating treatment outcomes. SIGNIFICANCE: These findings pave the way for developing targeted therapies aimed at restoring central auditory inhibition, offering more effective and personalized treatment strategies for tinnitus patients.
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.