4.5 Article

The neural correlates of subjectively perceived and passively matched loudness perception in auditory phantom perception

Journal

BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.331

Keywords

Context; gamma; intensity; loudness; nesting; parahippocampus; theta; tinnitus

Funding

  1. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)
  2. Tinnitus Research Initiative (TRI)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: A fundamental question in phantom perception is determining whether the brain creates a network that represents the sound intensity of the auditory phantom as measured by tinnitus matching (in dB), or whether the phantom perception is actually only a representation of the subjectively perceived loudness. Methods: In tinnitus patients, tinnitus loudness was tested in two ways, by a numeric rating scale for subjectively perceived loudness and a more objective tinnitus-matching test, albeit it is still a subjective measure. Results: Passively matched tinnitus does not correlate with subjective numeric rating scale, and has no electrophysiological correlates. Subjective loudness, in a whole-brain analysis, is correlated with activity in the left anterior insula (alpha), the rostral/dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (beta), and the left parahippocampus (gamma). A ROI analysis finds correlations with the auditory cortex (high beta and gamma) as well. The theta band links gamma band activity in the auditory cortex and parahippocampus via theta-gamma nesting. Conclusions: Apparently the brain generates a network that represents subjectively perceived tinnitus loudness only, which is context dependent. The subjective loudness network consists of the anterior cingulate/insula, the parahippocampus, and the auditory cortex. The gamma band activity in the parahippocampus and the auditory cortex is functionally linked via theta-gamma nested lagged phase synchronization.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available