PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

727

Title

Registered Report: Are anticipatory auditory predictions enhanced in tinnitus and independent of hearing loss?use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors

L. Reisinger, G. Demarchi, S. Rösch, E. Trinka, J. Obleser, N. WeiszPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year

2024

Picture

Abstract

<p>Phantom perceptions occur without any identifiable environmental or bodily source. The mechanisms and key drivers behind phantom perceptions like tinnitus are not well understood. The dominant “altered-gain”-framework suggests that tinnitus results from neural hyperactivity in the auditory pathway following hearing damage. Alternatively, however, researchers have tried to explain perceptual and potential neural aberrations in tinnitus within a more parsimonious predictive-coding framework. In line with this model, a recent magnetoencephalography (MEG) study reported that individuals with tinnitus engage more strongly in anticipatory sensory predictions compared to controls without tinnitus. However, correlations with hearing loss could not be drawn due to the study design. This registered report aimed to close this gap. We used an established passive-listening paradigm, in which the regularity (i.e. predictability) of pure-tone sequences was either random or ordered. Analyses encompassed data from 80 participants. 40 participants with tinnitus and 40 control subjects without tinnitus were not only matched for age and gender, but importantly also in terms of hearing loss. We were able to replicate our previous main finding: individuals with tinnitus showed relatively stronger pre-activations of carrier-frequency-specific neural activity patterns, supporting the hypothesis that chronic tinnitus is associated with maladaptively upregulated predictive neural processing. This effect was not driven by tinnitus distress and the groups did not differ in terms of decoding of tone frequencies. While our work firmly excludes hearing loss as explanation, future longitudinal studies need to determine whether dysregulated predictive processes are a consequence of tinnitus or rather pose a risk factor for developing this condition.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords

auditory perceptions, tinnitus, predictions, decoding, hearing loss, MEG

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields

Life Sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2024-02-21 16:17:33

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY