Download PDF
Semin Hear
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1804910
Review Article

Sensory Inhibition and Tinnitus: Measurement of Auditory Gating

Kenneth Morse
1   Division of Communication Sciences and Disorders, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, West Virginia
,
Julia Campbell
2   Central Sensory Processes Laboratory, Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
,
Lauren Ralston
2   Central Sensory Processes Laboratory, Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Tinnitus is the perception of sound without the presence of an external stimulus. The mechanisms associated with tinnitus are not entirely known, making diagnosis and treatment challenging. Although tinnitus mechanisms are not entirely known, there is evidence supporting an association between tinnitus with cochlear damage, reduced inhibition, and atypical cortical function. These mechanisms have been studied in animal models and people with tinnitus using a variety of different approaches. One approach that is a possible indicator of tinnitus in humans is sensory or auditory gating, which is a measure of inhibition. The goals of this article are to (1) review the mechanistic evidence associating tinnitus with cochlear damage and reduced inhibition, (2) discuss evidence of inhibitory impairments in people with tinnitus represented by auditory gating, and (3) address potential future directions to improve our ability to evaluate auditory gating mechanisms in people with tinnitus.

Keywords

tinnitus - sensory gating - auditory gating - inhibition


Publication History

Article published online:
03 March 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Nondahl DM, Cruickshanks KJ, Huang GH. et al. Tinnitus and its risk factors in the Beaver Dam offspring study. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (05) 313-320
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Sindhusake D, Mitchell P, Newall P, Golding M, Rochtchina E, Rubin G. Prevalence and characteristics of tinnitus in older adults: the Blue Mountains Hearing Study. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (05) 289-294
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sindhusake D, Golding M, Newall P, Rubin G, Jakobsen K, Mitchell P. Risk factors for tinnitus in a population of older adults: the blue mountains hearing study. Ear Hear 2003; 24 (06) 501-507
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Axelsson A, Ringdahl A. Tinnitus – a study of its prevalence and characteristics. Br J Audiol 1989; 23 (01) 53-62
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Searchfield GD. et al. The impact of hearing loss on tinnitus severity. Aust N Z J Audiol 2007; 29 (02) 67-76
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Mazurek B, Olze H, Haupt H, Szczepek AJ. The more the worse: the grade of noise-induced hearing loss associates with the severity of tinnitus. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2010; 7 (08) 3071-3079
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Eggermont JJ, Roberts LE. Tinnitus: animal models and findings in humans. Cell Tissue Res 2015; 361 (01) 311-336
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Noreña AJ, Farley BJ. Tinnitus-related neural activity: theories of generation, propagation, and centralization. Hear Res 2013; 295: 161-171
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Sedley W. Tinnitus: Does gain explain?. Neuroscience 2019; 407: 213-228
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Morse K, Vander Werff KR. Cortical auditory evoked potential indices of impaired sensory gating in people with chronic tinnitus. Ear Hear 2024; 45 (03) 730-741
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Jafari Z, Baguley D, Kolb BE, Mohajerani MH. A systematic review and meta-analysis of extended high-frequency hearing thresholds in tinnitus with a normal audiogram. Ear Hear 2022; 43 (06) 1643-1652
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Serra L, Novanta G, Sampaio AL, Augusto Oliveira C, Granjeiro R, Braga SC. The study of otoacoustic emissions and the suppression of otoacoustic emissions in subjects with tinnitus and normal hearing: an insight to tinnitus etiology. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 19 (02) 171-175
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci 2009; 29 (45) 14077-14085
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Morse K, Vander Werff K. The effect of tinnitus and related characteristics on subcortical auditory processing. Ear Hear 2023; 44 (06) 1344-1353
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Bramhall NF, Konrad-Martin D, McMillan GP. Tinnitus and auditory perception after a history of noise exposure: relationship to auditory brainstem response measures. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (05) 881-894
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Gu JW, Herrmann BS, Levine RA, Melcher JR. Brainstem auditory evoked potentials suggest a role for the ventral cochlear nucleus in tinnitus. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2012; 13 (06) 819-833
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Schaette R, McAlpine D. Tinnitus with a normal audiogram: physiological evidence for hidden hearing loss and computational model. J Neurosci 2011; 31 (38) 13452-13457
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Lemaire MC, Beutter P. Brainstem auditory evoked responses in patients with tinnitus. Audiology 1995; 34 (06) 287-300
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Eggermont JJ. The Neuroscience of Tinnitus. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2012
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Henry JA, Roberts LE, Caspary DM, Theodoroff SM, Salvi RJ. Underlying mechanisms of tinnitus: review and clinical implications. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25 (01) 5-22 , quiz 126
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Baguley D, Fagelson M. Tinnitus: Clinical and Research Perspectives. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2016
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Rauschecker JP, Leaver AM, Mühlau M. Tuning out the noise: limbic-auditory interactions in tinnitus. Neuron 2010; 66 (06) 819-826
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Caspary DM, Llano DA. Auditory thalamic circuits and GABAA receptor function: putative mechanisms in tinnitus pathology. Hear Res 2017; 349: 197-207
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Kaltenbach JA. Tinnitus: models and mechanisms. Hear Res 2011; 276 (1-2): 52-60
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Langguth B, Llinas R. Thalamocortical dysrhythmia: a theoretical update in tinnitus. Front Neurol 2015; 6: 124
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Cederroth CR, Lugo A, Edvall NK. et al. Association between hyperacusis and tinnitus. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (08) 2412
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Cromwell HC, Mears RP, Wan L, Boutros NN. Sensory gating: a translational effort from basic to clinical science. Clin EEG Neurosci 2008; 39 (02) 69-72
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Melzack R, Wall PD. Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science 1965; 150 (3699) 971-979
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Tonndorf J. The analogy between tinnitus and pain: a suggestion for a physiological basis of chronic tinnitus. Hear Res 1987; 28 (2-3): 271-275
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Møller AR. Tinnitus and pain. Prog Brain Res 2007; 166: 47-53
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Dalecki A, Johnstone SJ, Croft RJ. Clarifying the functional process represented by P50 suppression. Int J Psychophysiol 2015; 96 (03) 149-154
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Dalecki A, Croft RJ, Johnstone SJ. An evaluation of P50 paired-click methodologies. Psychophysiology 2011; 48 (12) 1692-1700
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Patterson JV, Hetrick WP, Boutros NN. et al. P50 sensory gating ratios in schizophrenics and controls: a review and data analysis. Psychiatry Res 2008; 158 (02) 226-247
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Javitt DC, Freedman R. Sensory processing dysfunction in the personal experience and neuronal machinery of schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2015; 172 (01) 17-31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Smith DM, Grant B, Fisher DJ, Borracci G, Labelle A, Knott VJ. Auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia correlate with P50 gating. Clin Neurophysiol 2013; 124 (07) 1329-1335
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Lijffijt M, Moeller FG, Boutros NN. et al. Diminished P50, N100 and P200 auditory sensory gating in bipolar I disorder. Psychiatry Res 2009; 167 (03) 191-201
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Ralston L, Campbell J, Gilley P, Nielson M, Brown K. Sensory gating networks in normal-hearing adults with minimal tinnitus. Am J Audiol 2024; •••: 1-11 (online ahead of print)
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Vlcek P, Bob P, Raboch J. Sensory disturbances, inhibitory deficits, and the P50 wave in schizophrenia. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2014; 10: 1309-1315
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Campbell J, Nielsen M, LaBrec A, Bean C. Sensory inhibition is related to variable speech perception in noise in adults with normal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2020; 63 (05) 1595-1607
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Campbell J, Nielsen M, Bean C, LaBrec A. Auditory gating in hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (08) 559-565
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Korzyukov O, Pflieger ME, Wagner M. et al. Generators of the intracranial P50 response in auditory sensory gating. Neuroimage 2007; 35 (02) 814-826
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Vanneste S, Alsalman O, De Ridder D. Top-down and bottom-up regulated auditory phantom perception. J Neurosci 2019; 39 (02) 364-378
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Rauschecker JP, May ES, Maudoux A, Ploner M. Frontostriatal gating of tinnitus and chronic pain. Trends Cogn Sci 2015; 19 (10) 567-578
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Campbell J, LaBrec A, Bean C, Nielsen M, So W. Auditory gating and extended high-frequency thresholds in normal-hearing adults with minimal tinnitus. Am J Audiol 2019; 28 (1S): 209-224
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Campbell J, Bean C, LaBrec A. Normal hearing young adults with mild tinnitus: reduced inhibition as measured through sensory gating. Audiology Res 2018; 8 (02) 214
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Newman CW, Jacobson GP, Spitzer JB. Development of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 122 (02) 143-148
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Newman CW, Sandridge SA, Jacobson GP. Psychometric adequacy of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) for evaluating treatment outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 1998; 9 (02) 153-160
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Campbell J, Sharma A. Compensatory changes in cortical resource allocation in adults with hearing loss. Front Syst Neurosci 2013; 7: 71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Gafoor SA, Uppunda AK. Sensory gating to speech and nonspeech stimulus and its relationship to speech perception in noise. Am J Audiol 2023; 32 (04) 889-897
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Henry JA. “Measurement” of tinnitus. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (08) e276-e285
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Lamberti JS, Schwarzkopf SB, Boutros N, Crilly JF, Martin R. Within-session changes in sensory gating assessed by P50 evoked potentials in normal subjects. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1993; 17 (05) 781-791
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Smith DA, Boutros NN, Schwarzkopf SB. Reliability of P50 auditory event-related potential indices of sensory gating. Psychophysiology 1994; 31 (05) 495-502
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Naber G, Kathmann N, Engel RR. P50 suppression in normal subjects: Influence of stimulus intensity, test repetition, and presentation mode. J Psychophysiol 1992; 6 (01) 47-53
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Boutros NN, Overall J, Zouridakis G. Test-retest reliability of the P50 mid-latency auditory evoked response. Psychiatry Res 1991; 39 (02) 181-192
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Rentzsch J, Jockers-Scherübl MC, Boutros NN, Gallinat J. Test-retest reliability of P50, N100 and P200 auditory sensory gating in healthy subjects. Int J Psychophysiol 2008; 67 (02) 81-90
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Kathmann N, Engel RR. Sensory gating in normals and schizophrenics: a failure to find strong P50 suppression in normals. Biol Psychiatry 1990; 27 (11) 1216-1226
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Tremblay KL, Friesen L, Martin BA, Wright R. Test-retest reliability of cortical evoked potentials using naturally produced speech sounds. Ear Hear 2003; 24 (03) 225-232
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Bidelman GM, Pousson M, Dugas C, Fehrenbach A. Test-retest reliability of dual-recorded brainstem versus cortical auditory-evoked potentials to speech. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (02) 164-174
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Walhovd KB, Fjell AM. One-year test-retest reliability of auditory ERPs in young and old adults. Int J Psychophysiol 2002; 46 (01) 29-40
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar