Validating the Gap-Startle Paradigm for Tinnitus Detection: A Machine Learning Approach in CBA/CaJ Mice
Price, A. B.; Brunelle, D. L.; Park, C. R.; Lowe, A. S.; Lobarinas, E.; Walton, J. P.
Show abstract
Tinnitus is one of the most common hearing disorders affecting one-third of Americans and is defined as the buzzing or ringing sound one perceives in one or both ears in the absence of an acoustic stimulus. One objective method for tinnitus screening in rodents is gap prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex (GPIAS), a reduction in the abrupt motor response elicited by an intense auditory stimulus following a silent gap in noise. Reduced inhibition by gaps embedded in narrow-band noise is hypothesized to reflect the primary tinnitus pitch, as the tinnitus "fills-in" the gap. However, Lobarinas et al. (2013) identified a critical limitation: after acoustic trauma or hearing loss, rodents often exhibit markedly diminished acoustic startle reflexes, creating a "floor effect" where further suppression becomes undetectable even if gap perception remains intact, leading to false-positive tinnitus screening results. To address this limitation, we utilized the CBA/CaJ mouse model to assess tactile airpuff modification efficacy and employed a machine learning algorithm to classify startle responses, achieving 98% accuracy in differentiating startles from non-startles. We induced unilateral conductive hearing loss via ear plugging and found enhanced gap detection ability, contrasting with false-positive tinnitus indicators observed in rats by Lobarinas and colleagues. We also pharmacologically induced tinnitus via sodium salicylate, revealing frequency-specific alterations in gap detection patterns. Our findings suggest that differences in data analysis methodology, specifically using a machine learning algorithm to filter non-startle responses, may explain species-specific differences between mouse and rat models and significantly improve GPIAS validity as a tinnitus screening assessment tool.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Trial-By-Trial Auditory Brainstem Response Detection 94%
- Prevalence and risk factors of self-reported audiovestibular symptoms in a population-based sample from rural northeastern Germany 93%
- Effect of digital noise-reduction processing on subcortical speech encoding and relationship to behavioral outcomes 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Auditory tests for characterizing hearing deficits in listeners with various hearing abilities: The BEAR test battery 95%
- Sound-Evoked Plasticity Differentiates Tinnitus from Non-Tinnitus Mice 95%
- Tinnitus Subtyping with Subgrouping Within Group Iterative Multiple Model Estimation: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Multi-scale predictions distinctively modulate tone perception in schizophrenia patients with auditory verbal hallucinations 90%
- Do congruent lip movements facilitate speech processing in a dynamic audiovisual multi-talker scenario? An ERP study with older and younger adults 88%
- Effects of theta transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on exploration and exploitation during uncertain decision-making 86%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.