Talk:Tinnitus

original research?

I can't bother to scour for sources but after one loud noise incident years ago, I've had tinnitus of the comes and goes variety of varying frequencies in both ears, varying from none to bothering in intensity, mostly mild. Through experimenting and research, in my case, I have found that when the tinnitus is mild (only audible when going to sleep), this mild intensity tinnitus can go to more audible/bothering quickly with each of : 1) salt/natrium/sodium intake (possibly connected to amount of water drank) 2) continual lack of proper amount of sleep or waking up before 8 hours of sleep is had 3) changes in air pressure may change the intensity if the tube from mouth to ear becomes blocked. I read about a theory that salt in the system causes water to accumulate in the ear which could block the tube which can be very tiny. After I had this condition, simply the air pressure from riding a bike with nothing covering the ears started the worst tinnitus I had had to date on the right ear, which then changed to low frequency hearing loss in the ear. It took maybe a month of minimal salt diet and this slowly resolved but some kind of "pressure" was still felt in the ear for couple months after the hearing loss resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14B8:100:2A9:0:0:0:2 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

For some type of subjective tinnitus vitamin combination of 500 mg C & 400+ IU D3 + 500 mg calcium may help

I already noticed mention of one proprietary vitamin combination in the article but it seem to have lot of components which makes it hard to determine what is the helping component, so here's what I found to work for one particular very mild level of tinnitus sound.

I've tried this combination (and only some parts of it rather than everything) on and off over past 6 months and I would say it takes approx 1-2 weeks of the mentioned dosage to start helping if it will help. It takes approx 2-4 days from stopping dosage for the particular type of sound to come back. The sound is like two alternating medium pitch sines in a single ear. The particular tinnitus started when I was sleep deprived and had a stressful and loud event happen but I can't rule vitamin deficiency entirely out of the picture as a facilitator of the possible damage, so for Tinnitus Prevention I would add: Avoid sleep interruptions, ensure proper nutrition. Also I can't recommend use of ear plugs at night every night. I tried this since it also helps with this same particular tinnitus but it also caused ear irritation.

Another poster below had the "brainwave theory". Interesting but I think it's always important to mention that there can be multiple causes of tinnitus. After all if there was a single cause, then my example of what helped with one instance of my own tinnitus would have surely had some effect on the other instances as well. (I've got 1 from very loud music (they sold ear plugs at the event! should've got em!), 2nd&3rd that came over time and come and go and the alternating one I described above)

Some cases of tinnitus are medically unexplained.[3][not in citation given]

Added verification tag because the review does not mention the symptom being medically unexplained, and nothing about the classification Medically unexplained symptoms. There might be a reference out there that verifies the material, but this source doesn't. Ward20 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the editor tagged this line in the intro as being unsupported by the reference: "Some cases of tinnitus are medically unexplained." If not resolved soon, any editor should remove the line. 5Q5 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

MUPS failed verification tag removed

This edit removed tag but the source never talks about medically unexplained or medically unexplained symptoms.[1] Ward20 (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

I wonder whether some tinnitus may be a case of audio feedback or sensory feedback. See Talk:Audio feedback for details. 68.83.179.156 (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I also wonder whether vibrations other than sound cause or affect tinnitus. 68.83.179.156 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Champagne bubbles

Gentleman, my description of tinnitus: like hearing 1000 effervescent carbonated beverage bubbles popping in the distance. Jidanni (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please differentiate between tinnitus and actual high frequency sounds

The writers of the tinnitus page have not mentioned the fact that sometimes a patient who hears high frequency sound is misdiagnosed as having tinnitus. The home or building this occurs in might need to be tested (by other knowledgeable persons)with sound gauges and meters for high frequency transmission signals, or modern wiring which can cause very high pitched sounds. this might be the case if the sound usually occurs only in certain "quiet" settings but not usually in other types of quiet settings, especially where the same transmissions and/ or wiring do not exist. Electromagnetic frequencies are known to be the culprit in many cases that were misdiagnosed. there are remedies for these kinds of signals and electromagnetic frequencies that don't involve drugs but rather, altering the environment they are found in. Here's a page that you might get info from on this subject: [[2]] Of course this is a whole different ballgame which most physicians might not even be aware of, since it is far from your particular discipline and you might have NO education regarding it. But it is very important that anyone concerned with tinnitus be made aware of this other distinct possibility that exists for many. I am not affiliated with the linked page in any way, i simply suffered from electromagnetic noise and found them as a resource. Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC) People suffer greatly when misdiagnosed, which happens often with "tinnitus", so i needed to shed some light by referring to this fact. I added a good academic link to the info i previously added in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meat Eating Orchid (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this easy to test? If you hear the noises after putting your finder on the outer flap of the ear and gently holding the flap pressed against the ear channel, this blocks outside noises very effectively. Then just walk around and if the noise intensity stays the same, it's tinnitus for sure.

Suggested Improvement of readability of bulleted outline style.

The Causes of subjective tinnitus is a good example of how large outlines can pose readability issues. The only deliminator for outline sub levels is indentation, which becomes quite difficult to follow when there are a large number of subjects under a given topic.

I suggest adding different bullets for each level, and/or having vertical guidelines for each of the levels (run regedit.exe and check the folder hierarchy, you'll see exactly what I mean if you use Windows).

I do not know how to edit Wikipedia articles, and I assume if I learned how I would only find out that this is the only bulleted list style available.

97.73.64.152 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable Individuals?

Given that the text claims that one out of five persons over 50 years of age has tinnitus, does it really make sense to have such a section? Where would you draw the line on such a list? Every aging rocker is a candidate, and probably every aging classical musician as well.

MarkinBoston (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm for removing it. It's trivia, and a WP:BLP problem. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it. It is irrelevant but interesting. Spotting Leonary Nimoy and Shatner both gives hope to those struggling with the condition. Ronz is right about keeping Wiki dry and Markin is right that the list could be 12% of everyone on Wiki, but it's still cool. Phoenixthebird (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This should be condensed into a single paragraph or integrated into the rest of the article. A flat list is unnecessary and not encyclopedic. "Interesting" and "cool" are, unfortunately, not a basis for inclusion.In.tripletime (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought this list was interesting because it is almost entirely male. Is this a property of the list, or of tinnitus in general? Dsav (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts on tinnitus, in direct accordance with talk guidelines.

I suggest that the article on Tinnitus is not verifiable, except by secondary and tertiary documents of such poor quality they don't count as valid for inclusion within Wikipedia. The entire sum of these appear to be based on incorrect, confusing, misleading or misinterpreted primary material. Therefore, I suggest the primary body of material that makes up the article on Tinnitus is unreliable. As there is no body of reliable secondary and tertiary material, I provide this section only as a direct copy of the only published tertiary material containing the correct description of tinnitus. I welcome and encourage editors to check my statements of claimed verifiability, and of unreliability themselves, and to subsequently edit first this talk page, and subsequently, the entire article, appropriately, and in line with Wikipedia policy.

Source:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xenek

Content:-

(subject) Wikipedia FAILS as a reference and learning tool because it doesn't provide or guide users to share or view original research and places too much value on historically false tertiary & second sources.

(content) My subject explains the problem.

Presently, Wikipedia is nothing more than a slowly developing weak reference source of occasionally false facts, furthering pseudoscience where this is the case. This can be resolved by a simple interface change.

The article on tinnitus is a classic example.

There was once in this article a single line someone posted saying something like (not word for word correct)-

"tinnitus may be the sound of the nervous system itself".

This has since been removed, by a well meaning individual.

Removing lines like this (containing key words like 'may' or 'might') because they are as yet unsubstantiated by primary or secondary research, stifles human development, not improves it. This results in Wikipedia today being just as poor a single general reference as are old version of Encarta, Britannica or Funk & Wagnells.

This original line led me to studying myself for a few years.

I have subsequently confirmed through persistent scientific observation that my tinnitus IS the sound of my brainwaves, specifically, areas of my neocortex. I haven't proven this in a laboratory - yet. For me, it isn't a sound in my 'ear' as the current painfully incorrect Wikipedia article falsely asserts. Yet I can confirm I experience identical symptoms as most other 'sufferers' described in the article. The term is the correct one to define my learned ability. The article is simply poor because it tries to abide by severely limiting policy.

My next paragraph is a statement of my thoughts after careful observation. This paragraph demonstrates and describes in the form of a concrete example, why it is so important to me to be able to (according to policy) reinsert a more accurate line "Tinnitus may be the sound of the nervous system itself, and is believed by some individuals to be the sound of the neocortex, and is completely unconnected to hearing loss apart from being more noticeable in the event of." into the current article on tinnitus.

Balancing and controlling left and right hemispherical activity and analyzing your brain by observing tinnitus is an ability that should be taught at preschool level for it probably takes decades to develop in the average person. I have been well aware of it since early primary school but never met a Doctor or Audiologist intelligent or knowledgeable enough to explain it clearly. Most people don't study their tinnitus closely enough, or for long enough, to be able to hear the different pitch or timbre of each distinct brain region at the different loudness levels. They probably won't either if they continue to be told it is a disorder, so tinnitus might never become the tool that it is - a very well connected and capable brainwave monitor able to be used for biofeedback of neurological features and functions. Biofeedback is the future of self-regulating individual brain management, which if harnessed correctly and taught may allow each individual to manage enabling or disabling superior mental abilities in self-chosen specific areas. Having tinnitus is a gift, claiming to be suffering from it is little different than to be claiming to be suffering because we can see.

I can't post a single line of my thoughts and conclusions on this original research in the Wikipedia article on tinnitus, because it would violate policy. This is terrible, because the present article has much pseudoscience written and believed by representatives of or individuals who are products of the established medical and educational institutions that, in this good example, demonstrates their propensity to continue supporting false and misleading secondary documentation that vaguely tries to explain something that is in hindsight obviously incorrect but hasn't yet been recognized as such.

To put this politely, in my opinion the present knowledge described in the article on tinnitus is a steaming pile of self supporting rubbish, that is far from scientific, even though it has been developed out of the combined work of a massive number of incredibly capable individuals. They misled themselves from the start, so all their work is in the wrong direction. Wikipedia only furthers this problem.

To resolve this issue so I can reward both Wikipedia, the writer of that single line, and the global community of humans with something tremendously important, all you need is a single additional tab across the top of the tinnitus tab, to the right of the article and discussion tabs. For this explanation I propose it be called 'Possibilities'. I expect someone can come up with a better appropriate term.

This tab would provide people with the ability to contribute their own original research to a secondary persistent article containing information that would inspire and encourage independent thought, through publishing and supporting developing knowledge and new directly relevant and key associated ideas. It need not be academic or institutionally supported, but does need to be clear and must contain words that accurately describe the content as 'possible not factual'. It would follow most or all of the usual article rules, apart from additionally violating the pillar of 'no original research'. It doesn't deserve or want to be in a separate wiki, for it really needs to be in article form 'side by side' the old article, for comparison reasons and so that a cohesive summary of new information is made immediately available to the editors of the primary article as written according to the three pillars policy, and to readers of the primary article that is assumed to be completely factual.

My own concerns of deliberately false or misleading data appearing in this tab, or of organizations using the content of this tab as proof of fact are valid, but insubstantial. All entries in the Possibilities tab would be removed (or persistently marked up as such) if they could be proven to be false, or had been proven false in a variety of possibly incorrect or inadequate studies, while simultaneously claiming to be factual. This tab would contain the key points of the original article with additionally simply described memes of a 'different viewpoint', 'supposed', 'developing' or of a 'only possibly correct' nature organized much as the original article. To repeat - all content on this tab would need to always be clearly worded as 'possible' using terms such as 'may' - as I use in my proposed single line above.

Without enabling a second tab containing a revised article supporting new possibilities, Wikipedia actively restricts allowing capable people to assist with improving the quality of existing human knowledge and instead frequently further reinforces or supports sometimes false or misleading knowledge. This is a fact which makes Wikipedia very dangerous, in my opinion.

If my conclusions are wrong, or this interface feature and policy already exists in an obvious form, with regards to this article then please correct me by editing my post as per guidelines, leaving only the verifiable material. Thank you.

Xenek (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

By your own admission, the addition of this content is original research, and not substantiated by any reliable sources. Please remember that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe there was a recent report in New Scientist corroborating the idea that tinnitus is the background noise of the auditory system in that as has been scientifically proven (according to the report) the brain needs a background pattern to compare with in order to detect sensory input. Being profoundly deaf with a Cochlear Implant and tinnitus I find this fits very well with my own experience. I beleive the line is now a correct statement ans should stay.

My thoughts on tinnitus, in direct accordance with talk guidelines.

I agree with the words of Xenek (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC) which I am quoting, "I suggest that the article on Tinnitus is not verifiable, except by secondary and tertiary documents of such poor quality they don't count as valid for inclusion within Wikipedia." The entry on tinnitus as currently written is misleading or unsubstantiated to the extent that it would be better to not have an entry for tinnitus at all. This article has enough misinformation that a warning should be made that that content may actually contain false or misleading istatements due to conflicting views among experts and the fact that studies cited have in many cases been contradicted by other research. Statements have citations they refer to sources that are contradicted by other sources which not cited. I cannot give a full account of the conflicts because it would take more words than contained in the Wikipedia tinnitus entry itself itself. Just to give one single example of how the public might be harmed by this article is the listing of amitriptyline as a substance that could ameliorate tinnitus when it is known that amitriptyline may cause tinnitus. There is content which contradicts itself. Just sticking with amitriptyline as an example because it is impossible to be comprehensive here, the article states this antidepressant can be beneficial yet in another part of the text is lists antidepressants as a possible cause of tinnitus. It is irresponsible to make statements which may lead a person with tinnitus to use a substance that might cause that person harm. Tomandzeke (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we clean this page up?

The "Causes" section is disorganized and sounds like a news article, and it has 0 references. Bluefist (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see hypertension listed as a cause. Did I miss it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.133.45 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The section on treatments needs to be grouped more logically, either by type of tinnitus or by type of treatment. Even better would be a table that covered both of those and had other attributes of the treatment methods, such as invasiveness, where performed, etc. DCDuring (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What Language is this ?

"In-ear headphones via sound entered directly into the ear canal itself, without any opportunity to be deflected or absorbed elsewhere are a popular cause of Tinnitus with volume set beyond modest or moderate levels". For goodness sake ! Just think about what you want to say, then write it down in simple sentences. This is apalling ! 'Popular' ???? Cannot Wikki find a competent writer of English among its numbers ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.49.157 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was disturbed to see the tinnitus article without mention of the inner sound; what Eckankar calls the ECK or audible life current and what other religions would call Aum or Om. Surely this would be a richer article for their inclusion, wouldn’t it? brent56@telus.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.46.184 (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Uloric for High Uric Acid may cause Tinnitus

I have high Uric acid, which results in Gout attacks. I recently switched from Alopurinol to Uloric. The latter claims to have fewer side effects. Th ringing in my ears started about two months after the change over.. My doctor thinks it may be the Uloric. I have gone back to the Alopurinol. I will follow up on this posting in a month or two. Has anyone else experienced this from this new drug Uloric? (KLF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.164.239 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thermal noise

Just a question...

I'm writing this here b/c Wikipedians have a good overview.

Could Tinnitus be jonson noise or thermal noise caused by brownian motion? Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we separate /* Notable individuals */ into a separate list article?

I think it would be beneficial to separate the Notable individuals section into a "List of persons with tinnitus" or "List of people with tinnitus". The current article is growing large enough that it is becoming painful to wait for the loading in edit & preview mode, & there is enough individuals that I think that it would make a effective list, especially with the extensive footnotes in this section.

Any thoughts? Peaceray (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture

The reference picture is not encyclopedic. Also, it seems like it's a stock image or an "instagrammed" photo with no encyclopedic value. I recommend we remove it and add a scientific picture of the inner ear. --164.58.59.60 (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I placed the subjective image of someone with tinnitus holding her or his ears & the picture of books on tinnitus just a few days ago. Before then, there were no illustrations. These two images are among the three located in the tinnitus category at Wikicommons, so there were not a lot from which to choose, especially since the third image in that category was in German. It would be great if someone added additional images related to tinnitus to this category.

I am not sure how replacing one stock image with another would improve the article. When I performed a Google image search for tinnitus, nine of the first forty images, or 22.5%, had people holding their hand(s) over their ear(s). Another had a similar pose in which the subject was grimacing & pointing his fingers at his temples. I had never have had permanent or debilitating tinnitus, but I have had a minor manifestation off & on. I suspect that the subjective image with the hands of the ears may well visually express what it is like to have the severe form of the affliction. Indeed, some with the debilitating form of tinnitus contemplate suicide.

Perhaps someone who has a more severe form of tinnitus can weigh in here.

I for one, welcome additional images that illustrate this condition, objectively or subjectively. However, I do not think that a stock diagram or picture of the inner ear would necessarily be a good replacement for the current image. After all, who can say that all forms of tinnitus occur in the inner ear? Is it not possible that the condition could also arise in the aural processing parts of the brain?

Peaceray (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No image would be better than the image that is currently used. The photo being used has been unnecessarily stylistically edited, and if one could argue a photo or illustration of an ear or inner ear isn't the most accurate representation of tinnitus, it could also be argued that someone covering their ears is equally as inaccurate. After all, no one with tinnitus would cover their ears in an attempt to relieve the ringing… that would be tremendously counterproductive.

That said, the current photo is uncharacteristic of a suitable image for encyclopedic content. I will remove it if a better image cannot be agreed upon in a reasonable time frame. ⚓ nbmatt 21:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Characteristics

"This has led to the suggestion that one cause of tinnitus might be a homeostatic response of central dorsal cochlear nucleus auditory neurons that makes them hyperactive in compensation to auditory input loss."

Any chance someone can simplify this so the author doesn't seem like too much of a douche? Pongley (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed form Notable individuals list

I've removed Bono form the list of Notable individuals. The only reference to this fact has "gone away" - and that without a valid reference, this entry was a clear breach of WP:BLP. It should be removed until a reliable source can be found. Thank you. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 17:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)