4.6 Article

The International Vocabulary of Tinnitus

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 16, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.887592

Keywords

tinnitus; terminology; language; vocabulary; qualitative research

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analyzes the vocabulary used for tinnitus across multiple languages and cultures. The majority of the words have a negative connotation and many are onomatopoeic or describe the sound. Participants experiencing tinnitus had different word preferences based on their own experiences.
Tinnitus is a common experience which can have a severe impact on ones quality of life. Whilst there have been reports of historical references to tinnitus, there has not been an international cross-sectional analysis of the vocabulary used for tinnitus. In this study, with 227 respondents (of which 53.3% experiencing tinnitus themselves), we report such an analysis of 252 words or phrases, from 42 languages and 48 countries. The results indicate that the majority of vocabulary used has a negative connotation (63%), though a small minority are positive (4%). Many words used for tinnitus in different languages are onomatopoeic-thus mimicking aspects of the percept experienced-or describe the sound (in total 42% of the vocabulary). The involvement of the ear is implied in some terminology, though other vocabulary expresses the impact. Participants experiencing tinnitus significantly differed on the codes for their proposed words or phrases (p < 0.001), with the code internal suffering or irritation or intrusion being more prevalent and the code relate to ear and sound is phantom or not real or imagined being less prevalent in this group. This research has implications not only for the vocabulary used for tinnitus in Patient Reported Outcome Measures but also, and importantly, for understanding the vocabulary and lived experiences of people with tinnitus by healthcare professionals.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available