Ekaterina A Yukhnovich, Kai Alter, William Sedley
{"title":"What Do Mismatch Negativity (MMN) Responses Tell Us About Tinnitus?","authors":"Ekaterina A Yukhnovich, Kai Alter, William Sedley","doi":"10.1007/s10162-024-00970-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Due to the heterogeneous causes, symptoms and associated comorbidities with tinnitus, there remains an unmet need for a clear biomarker of tinnitus presence. Previous research has suggested a \"final pathway\" of tinnitus presence, which occurs regardless of the specific mechanisms that resulted in alterations of auditory predictions and, eventually, tinnitus perception. Predictive inference mechanisms have been proposed as the possible basis for this final unifying pathway. A commonly used measure of prediction violation is mismatch negativity (MMN), an electrical potential generated in response to most stimuli that violate an established regularity. This narrative review discusses 16 studies comparing MMN between tinnitus and non-tinnitus groups. Methods varied considerably, including type of deviant, type of paradigm and carrier frequency. A minority of studies matched groups for age, sex and hearing, with few measuring hyperacusis. Frequency deviants were the most widely studied; at frequencies remote from tinnitus, MMN was consistently smaller in tinnitus groups, though hyperacusis or altered distress or attention could not be ruled out as explanatory factors. Few studies have used tinnitus-related frequencies; these showed larger MMN to upward frequency deviants above the tinnitus frequency, and larger MMN to upward intensity deviants at or close to the tinnitus frequency. However, the latter appears a correlate of hyperacusis rather than tinnitus, and tinnitus groups without hyperacusis instead show larger MMN to downward intensity deviants than controls. Other factors that affect MMN amplitudes included age, attention, and the specific characteristics of the range of stimuli across a particular experiment paradigm. As such, MMN cannot presently be considered a specific biomarker of tinnitus, but showed potential to objectively characterise a number of auditory processing traits relevant to tinnitus and hyperacusis.</p>","PeriodicalId":56283,"journal":{"name":"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-024-00970-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于耳鸣的病因、症状和相关并发症各不相同,目前仍需要一种明确的耳鸣生物标志物。先前的研究提出了耳鸣存在的 "最终途径",无论导致听觉预测改变的具体机制是什么,最终耳鸣感知都会发生改变。预测推理机制被认为是这一最终统一途径的可能基础。错配负性(MMN)是衡量预测违反情况的常用指标,它是对大多数违反既定规律的刺激做出反应时产生的电势。这篇叙述性综述讨论了 16 项比较耳鸣组和非耳鸣组 MMN 的研究。研究方法差异很大,包括偏差类型、范式类型和载波频率。少数研究在年龄、性别和听力方面对各组进行了匹配,很少有研究对过度听力进行测量。频率偏差的研究最为广泛;在远离耳鸣的频率上,耳鸣组的 MMN 一直较小,尽管不能排除过度听力或苦恼或注意力改变的解释因素。少数研究使用了与耳鸣相关的频率;这些研究显示,高于耳鸣频率的上行频率偏差的 MMN 较大,在耳鸣频率或接近耳鸣频率的上行强度偏差的 MMN 较大。然而,后者似乎与听力亢进而非耳鸣有关,没有听力亢进的耳鸣组反而比对照组对向下的强度偏差表现出更大的MMN。影响MMN振幅的其他因素包括年龄、注意力和特定实验范式中刺激范围的具体特征。因此,MMN目前还不能被认为是耳鸣的特定生物标志物,但它显示出客观描述与耳鸣和听力亢进相关的听觉处理特征的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What Do Mismatch Negativity (MMN) Responses Tell Us About Tinnitus?

Due to the heterogeneous causes, symptoms and associated comorbidities with tinnitus, there remains an unmet need for a clear biomarker of tinnitus presence. Previous research has suggested a "final pathway" of tinnitus presence, which occurs regardless of the specific mechanisms that resulted in alterations of auditory predictions and, eventually, tinnitus perception. Predictive inference mechanisms have been proposed as the possible basis for this final unifying pathway. A commonly used measure of prediction violation is mismatch negativity (MMN), an electrical potential generated in response to most stimuli that violate an established regularity. This narrative review discusses 16 studies comparing MMN between tinnitus and non-tinnitus groups. Methods varied considerably, including type of deviant, type of paradigm and carrier frequency. A minority of studies matched groups for age, sex and hearing, with few measuring hyperacusis. Frequency deviants were the most widely studied; at frequencies remote from tinnitus, MMN was consistently smaller in tinnitus groups, though hyperacusis or altered distress or attention could not be ruled out as explanatory factors. Few studies have used tinnitus-related frequencies; these showed larger MMN to upward frequency deviants above the tinnitus frequency, and larger MMN to upward intensity deviants at or close to the tinnitus frequency. However, the latter appears a correlate of hyperacusis rather than tinnitus, and tinnitus groups without hyperacusis instead show larger MMN to downward intensity deviants than controls. Other factors that affect MMN amplitudes included age, attention, and the specific characteristics of the range of stimuli across a particular experiment paradigm. As such, MMN cannot presently be considered a specific biomarker of tinnitus, but showed potential to objectively characterise a number of auditory processing traits relevant to tinnitus and hyperacusis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: JARO is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes research findings from disciplines related to otolaryngology and communications sciences, including hearing, balance, speech and voice. JARO welcomes submissions describing experimental research that investigates the mechanisms underlying problems of basic and/or clinical significance. Authors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the kinds of papers carried by JARO by looking at past issues. Clinical case studies and pharmaceutical screens are not likely to be considered unless they reveal underlying mechanisms. Methods papers are not encouraged unless they include significant new findings as well. Reviews will be published at the discretion of the editorial board; consult the editor-in-chief before submitting.
期刊最新文献
Dynamic X-ray Microtomography vs. Laser-Doppler Vibrometry: A Comparative Study. Comparing Patient-Specific Variations in Intra-Cochlear Neural Health Estimated Using Psychophysical Thresholds and Panoramic Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials (PECAPs). What Do Mismatch Negativity (MMN) Responses Tell Us About Tinnitus? Eric Daniel Young. Investigating the Effect of Blurring and Focusing Current in Cochlear Implant Users with the Panoramic ECAP Method.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1