ArticleScientific reports2026
Peripheral and central auditory dysfunction in tinnitus with clinically normal hearing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Tinnitus is the perception of ringing in the ear without an external source and occurs even in individuals with clinically normal hearing thresholds. This suggests there may be an undetected auditory dysfunction present. Two main mechanisms that could explain this phenomenon are ultra-high frequency hearing loss (> 8 kHz) and cochlear synaptopathy, which can disrupt both peripheral and central auditory processing. While ultrahigh frequency (UHF) audiometry is increasingly used in tinnitus assessment, the study aims to bridge the gap by systematic integration of measures of central auditory processing (TFS-AF and AMD) with clinically valid peripheral assessment (UHF) to characterise both peripheral and central deficits in tinnitus with normal hearing. The case-control study compared 28 patients with tinnitus and 28 age- and gender-matched controls. The individuals with tinnitus were assessed for tinnitus severity using the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI). The measures included UHF audiometry (9-20 kHz), TFS-AF, and AMD tasks. The diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, along with regression and Bland-Altman analyses. Tinnitus individuals differed across all measures (TFS-AF, AMD, and UHF) from the control group. indicating a disrupted temporal processing ability. Bland-Altman plots revealed systematic biases: TFS-AF values were consistently higher than UHF thresholds, while AMD scores were lower. UHF audiometry demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy in classifying individuals with normal hearing who have tinnitus (96.43%). In terms of clinical utility, UHF may offer higher sensitivity in detecting tinnitus in individuals with normal hearing. Systemic biases between measures suggest the presence of independent peripheral/central deficits in individuals with normal hearing who have 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.