Psychoacoustic Measures of Tinnitus
Abstract
This report reviews research from the 1930s to the present that has extended our understanding by investigating the characteristics of tinnitus that can be studied using psychoacoustic techniques. Studies of tinnitus masking and residual inhibition began in the 1970s, leading to the therapeutic use of tinnitus masking and a consequent increase in research devoted to tinnitus measurement. In 1981, the CIBA Foundation symposium on tinnitus advocated general adoption of four tinnitus measures: (1) pitch, (2) loudness, (3) maskability, and (4) residual inhibition. Since then, psychoacoustic research into all four topics has proliferated, yielding many valuable insights and controversies concerning the details of measurement techniques. A consensus has emerged that neither the loudness nor other psychoacoustic measures of tinnitus bear a consistent relation to the severity or perceived loudness of tinnitus. Nevertheless, quantification is needed in clinical trials of proposed treatments and in a variety of other types of tinnitus research. Standardization of techniques for specifying the acoustic parameters of tinnitus thus continues to be an important research goal.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The subjectively experienced distress due to tinnitus cannot be sufficiently explained by psychoacoustic parameters such as tinnitus loudness.
“The subjectively experienced distress due to tinnitus cannot be sufficiently explained by psychoacoustic parameters such as tinnitus loudness.[11]”
From The influence of tinnitus acceptance on the quality of life and psychological distress in patients with chronic tinnitus (2015) · cites this paper as [11]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 70 · Cited by 275
- Authors
- Henry, J. A., & Meikle, M. B.
- Affiliations
- Portland VA Medical Center (US)
- ORCID
- Henry, James A.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
- Publisher
- American Academy of Audiology
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 138-155
- ISSN
- 1050-0545 (ISSN-L)
- 2157-3107
- OpenAlex
- W156886959
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 1.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American Academy of Audiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Noise Effects and Management
- Keywords
- tinnitus, psychoacoustic measures, tinnitus masking, residual inhibition, tinnitus pitch, tinnitus loudness, tinnitus severity
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Perceptual Masking, Pitch Perception, Psychoacoustics, Tinnitus
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review