Tinnitus suppression by low-rate electric stimulation and its electrophysiological mechanisms

Zeng, Fan‐Gang; Tang, Qing; Dimitrijevic, Andrew; Starr, Arnold; Larky, Jannine; Blevins, Nikolas H.

doi:10.1016/j.heares.2011.03.010

Cited by 67 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One unilateral CI subject (UL1) with single-sided deafness also participated to contrast the effects of electric masking on acoustic stimulation. This subject had nearly normal thresholds ( 25 dB HL re ANSI-1996 for octave frequencies between 250 and 8000 Hz, except 35 dB HL at 4000 Hz) in the non-implanted left ear and was implanted in the right ear for the treatment of severe unilateral tinnitus and sensorineural hearing loss (Cullington and Zeng, 2010;Zeng et al, 2011). Both Institutional Review Board approval and written informed consent were obtained at University of California, Irvine.…”

Section: A Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central masking with bilateral cochlear implants

Lin

Zeng

2013

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across bilateral cochlear implants, contralateral threshold shift has been investigated as a function of electrode difference between the masking and probe electrodes. For contralateral electric masking, maximum threshold elevations occurred when the position of the masker and probe electrode was approximately place-matched across ears. The amount of masking diminished with increasing masker-probe electrode separation. Place-dependent masking occurred in both sequentially implanted ears, and was not affected by the masker intensity or the time delay from the masker onset. When compared to previous contralateral masking results in normal hearing, the similarities between placedependent central masking patterns suggest comparable mechanisms of overlapping excitation in the central auditory nervous system.

show abstract

Section: A Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central masking with bilateral cochlear implants

Lin

Zeng

2013

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The presence of tinnitus after implantation may be explained by the finding that tinnitus is suppressed mostly when the implant is stimulating the auditory nerve and often reverts back to its original loudness (or becomes louder) soon after stimulation is turned off (Zeng et al 2011;Vlastarakos et al 2014). Therefore, it is plausible that tinnitus could be still bothersome in CI users at night time if the CI is switched off before going to sleep (Chadha et al 2009), and consequently that they would not experience a reduction in the occurrence of tinnitus-related insomnia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tinnitus and Sleep Difficulties After Cochlear Implantation

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To estimate and compare the prevalence of and associations between tinnitus and sleep difficulties in a sample of UK adult cochlear implant users and those identified as potential candidates for cochlear implantation. Design:The study was conducted using the UK Biobank resource, a population-based cohort of 40-to 69-year olds. Self-report data on hearing, tinnitus, sleep difficulties, and demographic variables were collected from cochlear implant users (n = 194) and individuals identified as potential candidates for cochlear implantation (n = 211). These "candidates" were selected based on (i) impaired hearing sensitivity, inferred from self-reported hearing aid use and (ii) impaired hearing function, inferred from an inability to report words accurately at negative signal to noise ratios on an unaided closed-set test of speech perception. Data on tinnitus (presence, persistence, and related distress) and on sleep difficulties were analyzed using logistic regression models controlling for gender, age, deprivation, and neuroticism.Results: The prevalence of tinnitus was similar among implant users (50%) and candidates (52%; p = 0.39). However, implant users were less likely to report that their tinnitus was distressing at its worst (41%) compared with candidates (63%; p = 0.02). The logistic regression model suggested that this difference between the two groups could be explained by the fact that tinnitus was less persistent in implant users (46%) compared with candidates (72%; p < 0.001). Self-reported difficulties with sleep were similar among implant users (75%) and candidates (82%; p = 0.28), but participants with tinnitus were more likely to report sleep difficulties than those without (p < 0.001). The prevalence of sleep difficulties was not related to tinnitus persistence (p = 0.28) or the extent to which tinnitus was distressing (p = 0.55). Conclusions:The lack of association between tinnitus persistence and sleep difficulties is compatible with the notion that tinnitus is suppressed in implant users primarily during active electrical stimulation and may return when the implant is switched off at night time. This explanation is supported by the similar prevalence of sleep problems among implant users and potential candidates for cochlear implantation, despite differences between the groups in tinnitus persistence and related emotional distress. Cochlear implantation may therefore not be an appropriate intervention where the primary aim is to alleviate sleep difficulties.

show abstract

“…Laboratory trials indicated that electrical stimulation of the cochlea could suppress tinnitus in many sufferers (Hazell, Graham, & Rothera, 1985;Kuk et al, 1989), which has been further confirmed in recent investigations (Di Nardo et al, 2007;Zeng et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

A Series of Case Studies of Tinnitus Suppression With Mixed Background Stimuli in a Cochlear Implant

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Background sounds provided by a wearable sound playback device were mixed with the acoustical input picked up by a cochlear implant speech processor in an attempt to suppress tinnitus. Method First, patients were allowed to listen to several sounds and to select up to 4 sounds that they thought might be effective. These stimuli were programmed to loop continuously in the wearable playback device. Second, subjects were instructed to use 1 background sound each day on the wearable device, and they sequenced the selected background sounds during a 28-day trial. Patients were instructed to go to a website at the end of each day and rate the loudness and annoyance of the tinnitus as well as the acceptability of the background sound. Patients completed the Tinnitus Primary Function Questionnaire (Tyler, Stocking, Secor, & Slattery, 2014) at the beginning of the trial. Results Results indicated that background sounds were very effective at suppressing tinnitus. There was considerable variability in sounds preferred by the subjects. Conclusion The study shows that a background sound mixed with the microphone input can be effective for suppressing tinnitus during daily use of the sound processor in selected cochlear implant users.

show abstract

Tinnitus suppression by low-rate electric stimulation and its electrophysiological mechanisms

Cited by 67 publications

References 40 publications

Central masking with bilateral cochlear implants

Central masking with bilateral cochlear implants

Tinnitus and Sleep Difficulties After Cochlear Implantation

A Series of Case Studies of Tinnitus Suppression With Mixed Background Stimuli in a Cochlear Implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About