-
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jan 2020Whether fear conditioning can take place without contingency awareness is a topic of continuing debate and conflicting findings have been reported in the literature.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Whether fear conditioning can take place without contingency awareness is a topic of continuing debate and conflicting findings have been reported in the literature. This systematic review provides a critical assessment of the available evidence. Specifically, a search was conducted to identify articles reporting fear conditioning studies in which the contingency between conditioned stimuli (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US) was masked, and in which CS-US contingency awareness was assessed. A systematic assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies (k = 41) indicated that most studies suffered from methodological limitations (i.e., poor masking procedures, poor awareness measures, researcher degrees of freedom, and trial-order effects), and that higher quality predicted lower odds of studies concluding in favor of contingency unaware fear conditioning. Furthermore, meta-analytic moderation analyses indicated no evidence for a specific set of conditions under which contingency unaware fear conditioning can be observed. Finally, funnel plot asymmetry and p-curve analysis indicated evidence for publication bias. We conclude that there is no convincing evidence for contingency unaware fear conditioning.
Topics: Awareness; Cognitive Neuroscience; Conditioning, Classical; Fear; Humans; Perceptual Masking; Research Design
PubMed: 31747553
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.11.012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2012This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 12, 2010.Tinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 12, 2010.Tinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence of real acoustic stimulation. Numerous management strategies have been tried for this potentially debilitating, heterogeneous symptom. External noise has been used as a management tool for tinnitus, in different capacities and with different philosophical intent, for over a century.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of sound-creating devices (including hearing aids) in the management of tinnitus in adults. Primary outcome measures were changes in the loudness or severity of tinnitus and/or impact on quality of life. Secondary outcome measures were change in pure-tone auditory thresholds and adverse effects of treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register; CENTRAL; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 8 February 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Prospective randomised controlled trials recruiting adults with persistent, distressing, subjective tinnitus of any aetiology in which the management strategy included maskers, noise-generating device and/or hearing aids, used either as the sole management tool or in combination with other strategies, including counselling.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently examined the 387 search results to identify studies for inclusion in the review, of which 33 were potentially relevant. The update searches in 2012 retrieved no further potentially relevant studies. Both authors extracted data independently.
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials (553 participants) are included in this review. Studies were varied in design, with significant heterogeneity in the evaluation of subjective tinnitus perception, with different scores, scales, tests and questionnaires as well as variance in the outcome measures used to assess the improvement in tinnitus sensation/quality of life. This precluded meta-analysis of the data. There was no long-term follow-up. We assessed the risk of bias as medium in three and high in three studies. Following analysis of the data, no significant change was seen in the loudness of tinnitus or the overall severity of tinnitus following the use of sound therapy compared to other interventions such as patient education, 'relaxation techniques', 'tinnitus coping strategies', counselling, 'tinnitus retraining' and exposure to environmental sounds. No side effects or significant morbidity were reported from the use of sound-creating devices.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The limited data from the included studies failed to show strong evidence of the efficacy of sound therapy in tinnitus management. The absence of conclusive evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness. The lack of quality research in this area, in addition to the common use of combined approaches (hearing therapy plus counselling) in the management of tinnitus are, in part, responsible for the lack of conclusive evidence. Other combined forms of management, such as tinnitus retraining therapy, have been subject to a Cochrane Review. Optimal management may involve multiple strategies.
Topics: Acoustic Stimulation; Adult; Audiometry, Pure-Tone; Hearing Aids; Humans; Perceptual Masking; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sound; Tinnitus
PubMed: 23152235
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006371.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2014Tinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence of real acoustic stimulation. In the current absence of a cure for tinnitus, clinical management... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Tinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence of real acoustic stimulation. In the current absence of a cure for tinnitus, clinical management typically focuses on reducing the effects of co-morbid symptoms such as distress or hearing loss. Hearing loss is commonly co-morbid with tinnitus and so logic implies that amplification of external sounds by hearing aids will reduce perception of the tinnitus sound and the distress associated with it.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of hearing aids specifically in terms of tinnitus benefit in patients with tinnitus and co-existing hearing loss.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 19 August 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials recruiting adults with subjective tinnitus and some degree of hearing loss, where the intervention involves amplification with hearing aids and this is compared to interventions involving other medical devices, other forms of standard or complementary therapy, or combinations of therapies, no intervention or placebo interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors independently screened all selected abstracts. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed those potentially suitable studies for risk of bias. For studies meeting the inclusion criteria, we used the mean difference (MD) to compare hearing aids with other interventions and controls.
MAIN RESULTS
One randomised controlled trial (91 participants) was included in this review. We judged the trial to have a low risk of bias for method of randomisation and outcome reporting, and an unclear risk of bias for other criteria. No non-randomised controlled trials meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. The included study measured change in tinnitus severity (primary measure of interest) using a tinnitus questionnaire measure, and change in tinnitus loudness (secondary measure of interest) on a visual analogue scale. Other secondary outcome measures of interest, namely change in the psychoacoustic characteristics of tinnitus, change in self reported anxiety, depression and quality of life, and change in neurophysiological measures, were not investigated in this study. The included study compared hearing aid use to sound generator use. The estimated effect on change in tinnitus loudness or severity as measured by the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory score was compatible with benefits for both hearing aids or sound generators but no difference was found between the two alternative treatments (MD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.92 to 6.12) (100-point scale); moderate quality evidence. No negative or adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence base for hearing aid prescription for tinnitus is limited. To be useful, future studies should make appropriate use of blinding and be consistent in their use of outcome measures. Whilst hearing aids are sometimes prescribed as part of tinnitus management, there is currently no evidence to support or refute their use as a more routine intervention for tinnitus.
Topics: Adult; Hearing Aids; Hearing Loss; Humans; Loudness Perception; Perceptual Masking; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tinnitus
PubMed: 24482186
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010151.pub2