2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2022.108489
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cortical auditory evoked potentials, brain signal variability and cognition as biomarkers to detect the presence of chronic tinnitus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 89 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This result suggested that tinnitus patients were more disturbed by informational masking than normal adults in the auditory center and higher-level cognitive processing. This result is also consistent with the findings in the study by Cardon et al (2022) that patients with tinnitus differ from normal adults in cortical auditory evoked potentials, brain signal variability and delayed memory.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This result suggested that tinnitus patients were more disturbed by informational masking than normal adults in the auditory center and higher-level cognitive processing. This result is also consistent with the findings in the study by Cardon et al (2022) that patients with tinnitus differ from normal adults in cortical auditory evoked potentials, brain signal variability and delayed memory.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…However, does the central auditory system function abnormally in tinnitus patients with normal pure-tone hearing? At present, some researchers have explored the evidence of chronic tinnitus through cortical auditory evoked potentials, brain signal variability and delayed memory ( Cardon et al, 2022 ), but the underlying mechanism is still unclear. Furthermore, is there any effect on speech recognition performance under different masking conditions?…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lower rates, such as 85 Hz in Paul et al (2017), are typically associated with midbrain responses. These reduced responses towards more cortical regions were also observed by assessing cortical auditory evoked potentials (Cardon et al, 2022). Additionally, we presented a RAM-stimulus instead of the sinusoidal modulation envelope used in Paul et al (2017), because RAM-stimuli are less sensitive to OHC-damage and more sensitive to CS (Vasilkov et al, 2021).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…The above results indicate that the group-time interaction had no significant effect on P300 peak latency. After being educated, the subjects’ cognition of garbage classification was significantly improved, resulting in further improvement in the working memory to identify different garbage categories [ 66 , 67 ]. The specific performance shows that the response time for the classification judgement is reduced, and the intervention of interactive learning has the best effect.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%