The Neuroscience of Tinnitus

[erik]

Tinnitus-related neural activity: Theories of generation, propagation, and centralization



Abstract

The neuroscience of tinnitus represents an ideal model to explore central issues in brain functioning such as the formation of auditory percepts, in addition to opening up new treatment avenues for the condition in the long-term. The present review discusses the origin and nature of tinnitus-related neural activity. First, we review evidence for the hypothesis that tinnitus is caused by the central nervous system changes induced by sensory deprivation, even when hearing loss is not visible in the audiogram. Second, we suggest that changes in neural activity in individual central structures may not be sufficient to underlie the tinnitus percept. Instead, we propose that tinnitus may arise from functional alterations at multiple levels which promote abnormal propagation of neural activity throughout the network involved in auditory perception. In this context, functional coupling within and between central auditory structures may be especially important to consider. Investigating how sensory deprivation affects functional coupling between areas, which might be reflected in changes in temporal coherence of intrinsic ongoing activity patterns, may give critical insights into the mechanisms of tinnitus.

Full Article Link

 

[mock turtle]

i need to re read the article more than two more times

but one of many big take-aways for me is the sentence that said tinnitus may become sourced from the brain center over time...or words to that effect

thanks erik for the research

 

[Chicken]

i could read that article a few times and still cannot decipher what it is trying to say. can't they just say things that we "non-scientific" people can understand. can anyone intrepret it? i'm curious on what they mean but central nervous system and normal audiogram.

 

[Karl]

i could read that article a few times and still cannot decipher what it is trying to say. ...

Same here: Goobledy-gook.

 

[mock turtle]

yes it is dense reading but i would suggest.... this is what has worked for me

i use wikipedia, google , bing what ever... search terms one by one.... sentence by sentence if need be

eventually you will become conversant in the language of neuro scientists etc and it all will make more sense

dont give up

struggle with the words, you will get there

 

[Chicken]

i agree with Karl but can anyone intrepet all that goobedly-gook for me. what does it all mean in reference to those without hearing issues

 

[erik]

I am not a scientist but I believe it is trying to say that tinnitus is a change in our nervous systems caused by sensory deprivation, meaning that if there is a a loss or some loss of one of our senses and in the case of tinnitus hearing, then it causes neural changes within our brain. What is meant by the line "even when hearing loss is not visible in the audiogram" is that even if your audiogram shows "normal" hearing there is still more than likely some type of hearing loss even if minor and this loss causes the changes in our brain. Audiograms only show a certain range of human hearing which is considered the normal range. But human hearing range can be much greater than the standard audiogram. You can have hearing loss at much higher frequencies, but those will not show on a standard audiogram, and still have tinnitus. These are the people referred to as having tinnitus with "no hearing loss" but in fact there probably is some. I fall into that category. I have no loss up to about 13K. That was only discovered with a high frequency audiogram.

Furthermore, these neural "brain" changes happen at multiple levels and regulating these feedback mechanism changes in the central auditory system "may give critical insights into the mechanisms of Tinnitus". This in turn will lead to more effective treatment options. Studies now are already showing that because our brains are plastic, it may be possible that auditory training/stimulation using rTMS (magnetic therapy) and other therapies, can alter the response properties of neurons in auditory pathways and reduce or eliminate tinnitus.

 

[Wojtek Kalka]

Fyi some years later ;0 .. just found this book Ringing ears: the neuroscience of tinnitus. Free ebook download

http://www.frontiersin.org/books/Ringing_ears_the_neuroscience_of_tinnitus/77

 

[Dr. Jay Hobbs]

Well-stated @erik . I see why you are a "Manager." You probably already noticed my videos on "Hidden Hearing loss" and "The Most Common cause of Tinnitus", illustrating the likely mechanism in the brain. (I will post those links if someone wants.)

From my perspective, I first look VERY hard for other causes, like muscle trigger points. As I note in my video, the researchers don't really LOOK for other cause in this population, and thus assume they MUST all have hearing loss-induced tinnitus.

If I find nothing in the way of trigger point, then, based on our theory of hard-to-measure-hearing-loss-caused-tinnitus, auditory training plasticity mechanisms may promote a solution for these folks.

 

[Mic]

So... I see that you are interested in the last insights about the neuroscience of tinnitus...

Here is the link to a research paper written by real M.D.'s and based on hard evidence...
http://surgicalneurologyint.com/sur...nitus-is-there-a-place-for-brain-stimulation/

 

[Samir]

So... I see that you are interested in the last insights about the neuroscience of tinnitus...

So... in conclusion:

Although much is happening at the moment, the field is waiting for evidence from well-designed clinical trials, based on supporting evidence from experimental/mechanistic research, to support or discourage the application of brain stimulation in tinnitus.

For the record, I did take time to read the whole thing. They discuss about different target brain areas for stimulation, different stimulation techniques, but they mainly stay focused on DBS (deep brain stimulation). For all they want to do they can't target specific areas without stimulating other areas, or not without invading your skull (invasive vs. noninvasive), and even then they may not be able to reach into the target areas. They talk about possibly reaching into MGB (medial geniculate body), which is of course more superficial. An obvious obstacle is the complicated brain anatomy.

Side effects of electrical stimulation of the MGB are not known. Thalamic stimulation for movement disorders, however, has been proven to be safe with only a few reversible side effects. The MGB is better accessible with stereotaxy than deeper auditory structures and, therefore, the risks of surgery are expected to be relatively low.

I call this exploratory surgery and exploratory stimulation. They don't really know what they're doing, they are just poking around and hoping for the best. In my opinion this should be only used in the worst cases of tinnitus, if at all.

Here is the link to a research paper written by real M.D.'s and based on hard evidence

I wonder what makes them real, or more real than others? What is this hard evidence? They are using references to research papers by imaginary doctors?

I believe that neuroscience will be instrumental in helping us understand tinnitus. There is no doubt about it in my mind. But we are still in early years of research.

 

[Mic]

For the record, I did take time to read the whole thing. They discuss about different target brain areas for stimulation, different stimulation techniques, but they mainly stay focused on DBS (deep brain stimulation). For all they want to do they can't target specific areas without stimulating other areas, or not without invading your skull (invasive vs. noninvasive), and even then they may not be able to reach into the target areas. They talk about possibly reaching into MGB (medial geniculate body), which is of course more superficial.

My dear Samir... the title of the article says 'is there a place for brain stimulation' with respect to tinnitus and the article has been published on a website about neurosurgery.... so... of course the article discusses the possibility of treatment thru surgery. If this didn't make you happy there are enough websites about alternative treatment/research (for example about herbals) on the internet.

I call this exploratory surgery and exploratory stimulation. They don't really know what they're doing, they are just poking around and hoping for the best. In my opinion this should be only used in the worst cases of tinnitus, if at all.

The article uses references to hard double blind scientific evidence (most could be find on PubMed)... and yes most research is based on coincidence and trail and error... how do you think they discovered peniciline as an antibioticum in the first place

I wonder what makes them real, or more real than others? What is this hard evidence? They are using references to research papers by imaginary doctors?

The names of the people who wrote the article are public... you can Google them to discover every one of them have earned their title of 'Dr.' legitimit and by hard work (this opposed to some other people who show up on this forum as 'Dr.' without being a MD).

I believe that neuroscience will be instrumental in helping us understand tinnitus. There is no doubt about it in my mind. But we are still in early years of research.

Yes... nobody said the solution will be available tomorrow... but... If by research like this they can localize the silencer in our brain they can look closer to it under a microscope to decipher the neurobiology and work on drug interventions without using the chopsticks...

Capische?!?

 

[Samir]

Capische?

Capish! Open brain stimulation it is then!

Of course, some people may need a brain surgery anyway, and if they happen to have tinnitus that goes away after the surgery, that's something we might be able to learn something from.

 

[Kratos]

every one of them have earned their title of 'Dr.' legitimit and by hard work (this opposed to some other people who show up on this forum as 'Dr.' without being a MD).

A REAL Dr is anybody who has a PhD, calling MD's (without PhD) "Dr" is just a stupid tradition. Altho most people who publish pappers are PhD's.

 

[Mic]

calling MD's (without PhD) "Dr" is just a stupid tradition.

Yes, that is exactly the problem... there are enough scam artist's with a PhD on... let's say chiropracty... that call themselves 'Dr'. The average man doesn't know this and thinks advice is coming from somebody with a genuine medical degree.

My advice: it is possible that you believe in any offer of help in desperation of the distress you are experiencing. Don't believe in miracle cures and keep thrust in medical professionals (even if your as$#ole ENT sends you away for the 10th time with the message of better getting some psychotherapy...)

 

[Samir]

Yes, that is exactly the problem

Are you saying we should only trust those who are MD and PhD?