Back

Perceptual and neural biomarkers of distraction from an external sound source are not associated with tinnitus severity

Sorensen, D. O.; Sugai, J. A.; Maison, S.; Hancock, K. E.; Polley, D. B.

2026-01-30 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.01.27.702073 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Individuals with chronic tinnitus perceive a phantom sound that imposes either a bothersome and irrepressible distraction throughout waking hours or a relatively mild nuisance that often fades into subliminal awareness. The difference in tinnitus salience may reflect a general difference in inhibitory control over any distracting sound, whether externally or internally generated. To test this hypothesis, we investigated neural and behavioral signatures of external auditory distraction suppression in participants with chronic tinnitus that had mild or bothersome tinnitus but were otherwise matched for age and hearing loss. Participants in both groups underwent behavioral and EEG testing that asked them to report on a target stream of amplitude modulated tones that switched from a random arrangement to a repeating sequence. Using additional sounds that imposed varying levels of distraction, we documented neural and perceptual suppression of auditory distractors. Behaviorally, participants with mild versus bothersome tinnitus showed comparable reductions in accuracy in the presence of varying distractor loads. Neural synchronization to the target stimulus change rate provided a useful proxy for distraction effects but did not differ between tinnitus groups. Likewise, no group differences were observed in the neural synchronization to modulation rates of the target or distractor stimuli. Our results build on work showing that individuals with tinnitus perform as well as individuals with normal hearing on listening tasks in noisy environments and expand this observation into the neural representation of sounds. Suppression of the internally generated phantom percept does not appear to be linked to general deficits in suppressing distractors.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
37.7%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
10.1%
3
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
5
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 20%
3.6%
6
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
7
Hearing Research
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
8
Neuropsychologia
77 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
9
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.9%
10
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
11
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
12
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.5%
14
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.2%
15
Neuroscience
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
16
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.2%
17
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.2%
18
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
Neurobiology of Disease
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.9%
21
Trends in Hearing
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
22
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
23
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
33 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
24
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
25
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%