4.2 Review

Resting-state Networks in Tinnitus A Scoping Review

期刊

CLINICAL NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 903-922

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00062-022-01170-1

关键词

Subjective tinnitus; Functional magnetic resonance imaging; Brain imaging; Neural networks; Auditory network; Review

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR BRC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This scoping review provides an overview of resting-state fMRI studies in chronic subjective tinnitus patients. It identifies alterations in various resting-state networks, such as the auditory network, default mode network, attention networks, and visual network. However, the lack of reproducibility in the field may be attributed to the use of different regions of interest and analytical methods, as well as the heterogeneity of tinnitus. Future studies should focus on replication using the same regions of interest and controlling for potential confounds, in order to potentially identify a biomarker for tinnitus.
Chronic subjective tinnitus is the constant perception of a sound that has no physical source. Brain imaging studies show alterations in tinnitus patients' resting-state networks (RSNs). This scoping review aims to provide an overview of resting-state fMRI studies in tinnitus, and to evaluate the evidence for changes in different RSNs. A total of 29 studies were included, 26 of which found alterations in networks such as the auditory network, default mode network, attention networks, and visual network; however, there is a lack of reproducibility in the field which can be attributed to the use of different regions of interest and analytical methods per study, and tinnitus heterogeneity. Future studies should focus on replication by using the same regions of interest in their analysis of resting-state data, and by controlling adequately for potential confounds. These efforts could potentially lead to the identification of a biomarker for tinnitus in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据