phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | auditory-limbic interaction under noise and tinnitus— “The acoustic environment also affects non-auditory brain regions such as the limbic system.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “Acoustic experience such as sound, noise, or absence of sound induces structural or functional changes in the central auditory system but can also affect limbic regions such as the amygdala and hippocampus.” | |
| method — evidence | — “In this review we will present current knowledge on auditoryelimbic interactions, with emphasis on noise-the aversive acoustic stimuli from an external source, as well as the internally generated phantom sound of tinnitus.” | |
| mechanism | Noise activates the amygdala, which drives the HPA axis to release glucocorticoids, which then act on receptors throughout the body including the inner ear— “Exposure to noise can trigger the release of glucocorticoids by activation of the HPA-axis via the amygdala (Fig. 4).” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Noise drives neural hyperactivity in the hippocampus, and this hyperactivity (rather than circulating stress hormone) suppresses neurogenesis over the long term— “Therefore it is conceivable that neural hyperactivity in hippocampus during noise exposure may play a role for altering neurogenesis long-term.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Fear conditioning is implemented by long-term potentiation of lateral amygdala pyramidal neurons via NMDA receptors and voltage-gated calcium channels— “The mechanism for fear conditioning is proposed to be long-term potentiation on pyramidal neurons in lateral amygdala, and formation of long-term memory by involvement of NMDA receptors together with voltage gated calcium channels (Blair et al., 2001).” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | Acute stress protects the ear because released glucocorticoids activate glucocorticoid receptors in inner-ear tissue before the traumatic sound arrives— “It is believed that the protection against noise trauma is through the activation of glucocorticoid receptors in the inner ear (Canlon et al., 2007; Meltser and Canlon, 2011).” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | An amygdala-to-auditory feedback loop (via nucleus accumbens and thalamic reticular nucleus) gates the tinnitus signal out before it reaches cortex and awareness— “A feedback pathway from the amygdala to the auditory system may suppress the tinnitus signal at a subcortical level before it reaches auditory cortex and consciousness (Rauschecker et al., 2010).” | mechanisms[4] |
| contradicts | He et al. (2004)— “On the contrary, rat studies have demonstrated that stimulation of lateral amygdala can inhibit the response of primary auditory cortex to sound via GABA receptors (He et al., 2004).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Sander et al. (2003)— “These findings suggest that the stimulus pattern itself and not the resulting emotion is the crucial feature for amygdalar activation (Sander et al., 2003).” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Mizuno and Giese (2005)— “In contrast, he remained capable of remembering events from before surgery, showing that memory storage but not memory retrieval is dependent on hippocampus (Mizuno and Giese, 2005).” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | amygdalar activation - DRIVEN BY THE STIMULUS PATTERN, NOT THE EMOTION: the review reports that responses to emotionally meaningful sounds occur independently of how emotionally involved the subject is, and concludes the pattern itself is the crucial feature, so an 'emotional response' here names a reaction to an acoustic form— “These findings suggest that the stimulus pattern itself and not the resulting emotion is the crucial feature for amygdalar activation” | senses[0] |
| sense | the amygdala's effect on auditory cortex - SIGNED ONLY ONCE THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE FIXED: whether it facilitates or inhibits depends on which amygdalar neurons fire and which other regions are co-active, so the relation has no direction stated in the abstract and two possible directions in the body— “Thus, how amygdala-activity affects auditory cortex activity or plasticity depends on further circumstances, such as which amygdalar neurons are activated, or which other brain regions are co-activated” | senses[1] |
| sense | hippocampal dependence - STORAGE BUT NOT RETRIEVAL: the cited patient could still remember events from before surgery, which splits 'memory depends on the hippocampus' into a claim that holds for one half of the process and fails for the other— “In contrast, he remained capable of remembering events from before surgery, showing that memory storage but not memory retrieval is dependent on hippocampus” | senses[2] |
| differs in | He et al. (2004) — THE SIGN OF THE EFFECT. The review has just reported amygdalar activity FACILITATING auditory cortex, and then: 'On the contrary, rat studies have demonstrated that stimulation of lateral amygdala can inhibit the response of primary auditory cortex to sound via GABA receptors.' Two directions for one connection, and the review does not resolve them - the record already carries that as a sense, marked as signed only once the circumstances are fixed— “On the contrary, rat studies have demonstrated that stimulation of lateral amygdala can inhibit the response of primary auditory cortex to sound via GABA receptors (He et al., 2004).”— “can inhibit the response of primary auditory cortex to sound” | claim_relations[0] |
| differs in | Sander et al. (2003) — WHAT THE AMYGDALA IS RESPONDING TO. 'These findings suggest that the stimulus pattern itself and not the resulting emotion is the crucial feature for amygdalar activation.' The structure that carries the emotional interpretation of the literature turns out to be driven by an acoustic property, so results reported as emotional responses may be pattern responses under an emotional description— “These findings suggest that the stimulus pattern itself and not the resulting emotion is the crucial feature for amygdalar activation (Sander et al., 2003).”— “These findings suggest that the stimulus pattern itself and not the resulting emotion” | claim_relations[1] |
| differs in | Mizuno and Giese (2005) — WHICH HALF OF MEMORY THE STRUCTURE IS NEEDED FOR, SPLIT BY ONE PATIENT'S PRESERVED ABILITY: 'In contrast, he remained capable of remembering events from before surgery, showing that memory storage but not memory retrieval is dependent on hippocampus.' A single dissociation does the work of dividing one word into two functions, which is a large claim to rest on what a patient could still do— “In contrast, he remained capable of remembering events from before surgery, showing that memory storage but not memory retrieval is dependent on hippocampus (Mizuno and Giese, 2005).”— “memory storage but not memory retrieval is dependent on hippocampus” | claim_relations[2] |
| depends on | amygdala-activity —causes→ auditory cortex — which amygdalar neurons are activated, and which other brain regions are co-activated— “Thus, how amygdala-activity affects auditory cortex activity or plasticity depends on further circumstances, such as which amygdalar neurons are activated, or which other brain regions are co-activated”— “such as which amygdalar neurons are activated, or which other brain regions are co-activated” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | amygdala-activity —causes→ auditory cortex — 0.6— “Thus, how amygdala-activity affects auditory cortex activity or plasticity depends on further circumstances, such as which amygdalar neurons are activated, or which other brain regions are co-activated” | concept_edges[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any general statement about noise effects: RESPONSES TO NOISE MAY HUGELY VARY AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND HEAVILY DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF NOISE— “While responses to noise may hugely vary among individuals (Belojevic et al., 2003) and heavily depend on the type of noise (Irwin et al., 2010), there is general evidence on negative effects of acute as well as chronic noise on brain and health.” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the direction of the amygdala's effect on auditory cortex: HOW AMYGDALA-ACTIVITY AFFECTS AUDITORY CORTEX ACTIVITY OR PLASTICITY DEPENDS ON FURTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS WHICH AMYGDALAR NEURONS ARE ACTIVATED, OR WHICH OTHER BRAIN REGIONS ARE CO-ACTIVATED— “Thus, how amygdala-activity affects auditory cortex activity or plasticity depends on further circumstances, such as which amygdalar neurons are activated, or which other brain regions are co-activated.” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — any emotional interpretation of amygdalar activation reported here: the authors state the findings suggest the stimulus pattern itself, and not the resulting emotion, is the crucial feature— “These findings suggest that the stimulus pattern itself and not the resulting emotion is the crucial feature for amygdalar activation” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — any claim that amygdalar activity facilitates or inhibits auditory cortex: the effect is said to depend on further circumstances, namely which amygdalar neurons are activated and which other brain regions are co-activated— “Thus, how amygdala-activity affects auditory cortex activity or plasticity depends on further circumstances, such as which amygdalar neurons are activated, or which other brain regions are co-activated” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — any claim that memory depends on the hippocampus: the cited case shows memory storage but not memory retrieval to be dependent on hippocampus, since the patient could still remember events from before surgery— “In contrast, he remained capable of remembering events from before surgery, showing that memory storage but not memory retrieval is dependent on hippocampus” | limitations[5] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Direct evidence that the limbic system is essential to tinnitus generation or stabilisation is not established.— “However, direct evidence for this is not well established (Adjamian et al., 2009).” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Responses to noise vary widely between individuals and depend strongly on the type of noise.— “While responses to noise may hugely vary among individuals (Belojevic et al., 2003) and heavily depend on the type of noise (Irwin et al., 2010), there is general evidence on negative… | limitations[1] |
| limitation | Whether amygdalar activity facilitates or inhibits auditory cortex depends on unresolved further factors. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The crucial feature for the response is stated to be the stimulus pattern, not the emotion it produces. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The direction of the amygdala's effect on auditory cortex is unresolved, and the paper names what it turns on. | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The hippocampal claim is split between storage and retrieval by a single-patient observation. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | The review suggests the limbic system may play a role in both generating and suppressing tinnitus, and may be essential for its treatment. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Findings suggest the stimulus pattern itself, not the resulting emotion, is crucial for amygdalar activation. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Although stress correlates with hearing problems, many studies show acute stress can enhance hearing or protect against noise-induced hearing loss. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | The effect of stress hormones on hippocampal LTP follows an inverted-U dose relationship, facilitating potentiation at low levels and impairing it at high levels. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | The long-term reduction in neurogenesis after noise cannot be mediated by sustained corticosterone elevation. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Hippocampal phase-locking to auditory input is novelty-dependent, appearing for new stimuli and declining with repetition, which suggests a role in novelty detection. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Stress has opposite effects on the two memory operations: it strengthens encoding of emotionally arousing events while suppressing retrieval and cognition. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| quantity | 126 dB, 12 kHz narrowband, 2 h — the single acute noise exposure that produced a hippocampal neurogenesis reduction still visible ten weeks later Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 30 days / 40 days — recovery time of hippocampal monoamine levels and memory after 80 dB versus 100 dB chronic noise, showing recovery scales with exposure intensity Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 2.1 kHz — the fundamental frequency of rat pain calls to which lateral amygdala neurons phase-lock Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 80 dB, 2 h, 6 weeks — the moderate noise dose sufficient to impair learning and memory and cause oxidative damage Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 122 dB — the noise level after which sympathectomy reduced permanent threshold shift in guinea pigs Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| definition | acoustic startle response Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | pre-pulse inhibition Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | hippocampal inhibition or gating Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | neurogenesis Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | Pavlovian fear conditioning Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | place cells Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| concept | stimulus pattern Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | amygdalar activation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | amygdala-activity Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | auditory cortex Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | memory storage Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824