↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
No cochlear dead regions detected in non-pulsatile tinnitus patients: An assessment with the threshold equalizing noise (sound pressure level) test
Published in
Noise & Health, January 2013
DOI 10.4103/1463-1741.110297
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

One of the hypotheses on the etiology of non-pulsatile tinnitus in normal or hearing impaired patients is the existence of sharp edged cochlear dead regions (DR) flanking normal functioning hair cells. The lack of inhibition of DR on the neighboring neurons may lead to hyperactivity. Currently the Threshold Equalizing Noise test (TEN test) is the reference test to clinically assess cochlear DR. To identify cochlear DR in patients with non-pulsatile tinnitus with and without hearing loss using the TEN (sound pressure level)-test. Data were obtained from adult patients with non-pulsatile tinnitus visiting the Tinnitus Clinic of the University Hospital Antwerp. The TEN (SPL)-test was performed to assess the presence of cochlear DR for test frequencies ranging from 0.5 to 8 kHz. A total of 55 ears of 33 subjects (15 male; 18 female) with non-pulsatile tinnitus were included in the study. Subjects were divided into subgroups based on the audiometric configuration of hearing loss: Flat configuration (N = 23), high-frequency gently sloping (N = 10) and high-frequency steeply sloping (N = 22). In forty-eight ears there was no evidence of cochlear DR. In seven ears the results were inconclusive. This occurred in patients with high-frequency steeply sloping audiogram configurations. The present study does not support the TEN (SPL) test as a reliable tool for the detection of cochlear DR in a tinnitus population.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Russia 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Librarian 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 12 46%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 12 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2013.
All research outputs
#24,786,738
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Noise & Health
#381
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,795
of 346,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Noise & Health
#43
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.