01, k > 108 mm3)

01, k > 108 mm3). GSK2118436 supplier Hyperactivity in posterior superior temporal cortex (pSTC) was significant at the single-voxel level for all stimulus frequencies except the lowest

(Table 2; Figure 2A). However, in an ROI comprised of voxels exhibiting significant between-groups differences for any stimulus frequency (Figure 2B), a similar trend was observed for the lowest stimulus frequencies (t(20) = 2.49, p = 0.02). Tinnitus patients also demonstrated increased signal in response to TF-matched stimuli in left medial Heschl’s gyrus (mHG; Table 2; Figure 2A) at the single-voxel level. This hyperactivity in mHG, the likely location of primary auditory cortex ( Penhune find more et al., 1996 and Rademacher et al., 2001), was not significant for other stimulus conditions ( Figure 2C). Again, mean hearing loss (a “nuisance” covariate in the

above analyses), and age did not affect these results; an additional ROI analysis restricted to the four youngest patients yielded hyperactivity for TF-matched stimuli (pSTC: t(13) = 4.05, p = 0.001; mHG: t(13) = 3.37, p = 0.005). In addition, hyperactivity in mHG was still apparent when comparing fMRI signal in tinnitus patients on TF-matched trials against fMRI signal in controls on all stimulus trials (ROI analysis, t(20) = 2.11, p = 0.048).

No differences in fMRI signal were seen between groups in any MGN voxels at any stimulus frequency. In VBM analyses, significant differences in anatomical images were seen between groups in the subcallosal region, in ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC; t > 4.65 p < 0.0001; Figure 3A). For both modulated and Phosphoprotein phosphatase unmodulated gray matter (GM) images (interpreted as GM amount and concentration, respectively), tinnitus patients exhibited significantly reduced signal intensity ( Figures 3A and 3B). Tinnitus patients demonstrated a corresponding increase in vmPFC signal intensity in unmodulated white matter (WM) images as well ( Figures 3A and 3B), which can be interpreted as an increase in WM concentration in this region relative to other types of tissue. These effects appear to be independent of age and total GM or WM volume; these factors were used as covariates in all VBM analyses. Additionally, these between-group differences persisted when mean hearing loss was entered as a covariate in ROI analyses as well (GM amount: t = 4.70, p < 0.0001; GM concentration: t = 5.76, p < 0.00001; WM concentration: t = 7.14, p < 0.00001). Thus, anatomical differences were not related to measurable hearing loss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>