 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Tinnitus / June 2006What's Happening?
There have been no messages for 2-3 days. > There have been no messages for 2-3 days. I noticed it too, other groups are working, this one may have stalled temporarily, I hope. Dave C. We are all habituating............. ===================== > There have been no messages for 2-3 days. > We are all habituating............. Ah Francis, from you that's so good to hear.... Hope it's going well..... ;-) Steve My definition of habituation does not mean suffering in silence or getting used to suffering. It means giving a body time to heal with the help of exercise and blood vessel dilating medicine. > > We are all habituating............. > > Ah Francis, from you that's so good to hear.... Hope it's going well..... > ;-) > > Steve > My definition of habituation does not mean suffering in silence or > getting used to suffering. Habituation means one is no longer suffering. Susan > My definition of habituation does not mean suffering in silence or > getting used to suffering. It means giving a body time to heal with > the help of exercise and blood vessel dilating medicine. That's not habituation. > > > We are all habituating............. > > > > Ah Francis, from you that's so good to hear.... Hope it's going well..... > > ;-) > > > > Steve > My definition of habituation does not mean suffering in silence or > getting used to suffering. It means giving a body time to heal with > the help of exercise and blood vessel dilating medicine. Your definition is wrong. frank >> My definition of habituation does not mean suffering in silence or >> getting used to suffering. It means giving a body time to heal with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > frank I'm curious as to what your definition is. Mine is that habituation occurs when a person accepts that the tinnitus will always be there, but doesn't fear the tinnitus will harm him/her. Eva > >> My definition of habituation does not mean suffering in silence or > >> getting used to suffering. It means giving a body time to heal with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Eva Eva, habituation deals with the ability of your mind/brain getting used to and filtering out constant "noise" whether external or internal. Techically, I like this definition: "the reduction of psychological or behavioral response occurring when a specific stimulus occurs repeatedly". It is similar to living next to a busy highway and not hearing all the traffic (external) or developing a "floater" and over time not seeing this vitreal debris unless you consciously look for it (internal). frank Eva Quesnell <equesnel@unm.edu> wrote in part: >>> My definition of habituation does not mean suffering in silence or >>> getting used to suffering. It means giving a body time to heal with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Eva Habituation is a standard term in psychology and physiology. It doesn't have anything to do with acceptance. It is simply the diminishing effect of a stimulus over a long period of time.  SignatureJim Chinnis / Warrenton, Virginia, USA Want to discuss Meniere's? See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MenieresDG > Eva Quesnell <equesnel@unm.edu> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > anything to do with acceptance. It is simply the diminishing effect of a > stimulus over a long period of time. For example, there was a popular science program on TV in the 60's. One piece they did was about an experiment in which a person wore glasses that inverted his filed of vision so that everything appeared upside down. He wore the glasses all the time, and, at some point, his brain adjusted his perception so that he saw everything right side up through the glasses. Then when he took the glasses off, everything was upside down again and he had to go through the habituation period once more. > For example, there was a popular science program on TV in the 60's. One > piece they did was about an experiment in which a person wore glasses [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the glasses. Then when he took the glasses off, everything was upside > down again and he had to go through the habituation period once more. 'Stratton's Experiment' comes to mind.... 1910 ? This poses a surprisingly difficult conceptual problem to get one's head around. Does the person in the experiment actually learn to see the inverted world as 'upright' in the same sense as everyone else sees it, or merely learn to work effectively with a world that still actually appears to him inverted ? But then, if the scene can be said to be 'upright' or 'inverted' then.... relative to what ? There is nothing else in the visual field to compare it with and thus determine whether it's inverted or upright. ??? Re. habituation: whether I can hear my tinnitus or not depends on whether I am paying attention to it. When I forget about my T the sensation is _not_ that it is 'still there but being ignored' but that it is 'not there at all'. It seems impossible to separate out various processing levels (sensory stimulus, simple awareness, and final interpretation) when it comes to analysing what is going on in the senses; the whole chain has to be functional for something to be seen, heard, or felt, etc. Big jump from this>> 'consciousness' seems to emerge only when everything is working together. Steve On 6/3/06 4:28 AM, in article 4eda43F1crlgbU1@individual.net, "Skycloud" <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> For example, there was a popular science program on TV in the 60's. One >> piece they did was about an experiment in which a person wore glasses [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Steve Actually the image reaches the retina inverted. The brain and learning makes the adjustment. > On 6/3/06 4:28 AM, in article 4eda43F1crlgbU1@individual.net, "Skycloud" > <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> > Actually the image reaches the retina inverted. The brain and learning > makes > the adjustment. Sure, the real image on the retina is inverted relative to the the world and body outside but that's as far as it goes. The actual perception of vision is done inside the brain. The notion that the visual field then needs to be put 'the right way up' by the brain only means anything if there's some innate internal sense of 'uprightness' to check the view against. But AFAIK there is no _absolute_ sense of uprightness - uprightness only describes something which isn't upside down. It's a thorny conundrum which (for me) is as hard to put into words as it is to fathom. Yeah causes "uptightness" too ... ;-) Steve Martin Smith <burning.giraffe@meltingclock.bis> wrote in part: >> Eva Quesnell <equesnel@unm.edu> wrote in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >the glasses. Then when he took the glasses off, everything was upside >down again and he had to go through the habituation period once more. That's not really habituation. But it is a good example of "plasticity." There's a lot between the raw stimulus and our perception of it, and it can be modified. SignatureJim Chinnis / Warrenton, Virginia, USA Want to discuss Meniere's? See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MenieresDG > That's not really habituation. But it is a good example of "plasticity." > There's a lot between the raw stimulus and our perception of it, and it can > be modified. There is more to this plasticity, or habituation, or whatever you choose to call it. Contemporary real science: For some years now, acousticians and audiologists have been measuring "Otoacoustic Emissions" (OAE). The really WEIRD thing about these (contra intuitive) facts are: 1- When a tiny microphone is placed inside the ear canal of a healthy person with normal hearing and no tinnitus, low level pure tones are often detected and measured. The tone frequency will vary, but it is always in the audible range. 2- At the same time, the subject states that he or she does NOT hear said tones. 3- Persons with good hearing are the subjects that are more likely to emit such OAE's. 4- Persons with poor hearing have lesser tones, or they are so low in level that they can't be measured. 5- A recent paper at the Providence meeting of ASA by Lynn Marshall reported that she tried to correlate the disappearance of OAE's with future hearing loss occurrence, but the correlation was very poor. I asked her carefully whether the tones that were measurable were perceived by the subjects, and she replied "They are not perceived even though they are real and measurable because the brain 'cancels them' (sic).". So there you have it. One more factoid. This leads me to the conjecture that our brain normally cancels physiological sounds or pseudo sound signals, and perhaps tinnitus is the FAILURE of this cancellation process. The only analogy I can think of is that it's like a feedback circuit that is no longer working properly. Strange! Angelo Campanella I think you made a very good report of another way of looking at tinnitus. My ENT doctor told me that one of the reasons why old T is so difficult to treat is because once the t sound is recorded in the brain, the brain stores it up and replays it back. Thus it is important to treat T when it is new before the brain stores up the sound. I am amazed no one responds to your good post. FP ======================== > > That's not really habituation. But it is a good example of "plasticity." > > There's a lot between the raw stimulus and our perception of it, and it can [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Angelo Campanella On 6/11/06 8:55 AM, in article 1150041319.697755.132310@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "fyfpoon@gmail.com" > I think you made a very good report of another way of looking at > tinnitus. My ENT doctor told me that one of the reasons why old T is so [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >> >> Angelo Campanella OAE simply measures the hair cells of the inner ear as they move back and fourth. Spontaneous OAE is the hair cells moving back and forth without major sound coming in. We used to think that represented Tinnitus but it doesn't. Of course the poorer the hearing the fewer hair cells move back and forth and in significant hearing loss there is little movement even with loud sounds. Yes, the brain itself can "generate" or cause Tinnitus. Good Rx today is to treat all 3 levels - ear, nerve and brain. > Eva Quesnell <equesnel@unm.edu> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > anything to do with acceptance. It is simply the diminishing effect of a > stimulus over a long period of time. Ummm, aren't you just using technical jargon to describe the same thing I did? Acceptance is what causes the diminishing effect of the stimulus. If a person stays in panic mode, the diminishing effect will not happen. Eva Eva Quesnell <equesnel@unm.edu> wrote in part: >> Eva Quesnell <equesnel@unm.edu> wrote in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >did? Acceptance is what causes the diminishing effect of the stimulus. >If a person stays in panic mode, the diminishing effect will not happen. I gave the technical meaning, yes. I don't think a worm accepts its circumstances, but its response to a long-term continued stimulus diminishes all the same. I know people with tinnitus who have habituated very well, yet they are still outraged that such a thing happened to them and specifically say they will never "accept" it. I think some attitudes may speed or slow habituation, but they don't change the definition of the word. SignatureJim Chinnis / Warrenton, Virginia, USA Want to discuss Meniere's? See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MenieresDG > Eva Quesnell <equesnel@unm.edu> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > circumstances, but its response to a long-term continued stimulus diminishes > all the same. Hey! Are you calling me a worm? ;-D > I know people with tinnitus who have habituated very well, yet they are > still outraged that such a thing happened to them and specifically say they > will never "accept" it. Errr, ummm, yeah, I can think of somebody who says that. > I think some attitudes may speed or slow habituation, but they don't change > the definition of the word. True enough, but face it -- I'm right and you're wrong. :) JK! Eva > Jim Chinnis / Warrenton, Virginia, USA > Want to discuss Meniere's? See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MenieresDG Eva Quesnell <equesnel@unm.edu> wrote in part: >I'm right and you're wrong No argument from me on that. I know my place. :-) SignatureJim Chinnis / Warrenton, Virginia, USA Want to discuss Meniere's? See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MenieresDG > Eva Quesnell <equesnel@unm.edu> wrote in part: > >> I'm right and you're wrong > > No argument from me on that. I know my place. :-) 'Tis a good man who knows the woman is *always* right -- no matter what. :-D Eva snipped... > Ummm, aren't you just using technical jargon to describe the same thing I > did? Acceptance is what causes the diminishing effect of the stimulus. > If a person stays in panic mode, the diminishing effect will not happen. I think when people talk about habituation, they are referring to a state where one hears a noise all the time and nothing else. As someone who went through it, I was experiencing both a high pitched sound and a lot of nerve discomfort in the head. I practically don't see how i would have 'habituated'. To have tried to habituate and done nothing else would have been foolish. Fortunately, against the findings of all that cited 'controlled' studies, I went for a couple of acupuncture treatments which took care of my nerve discomfort and softened my T noise. I don't think I could have achieved that through 'habituation'. I think it is morally irresponsible for a doctor to preach habituation without personally diagnosing the T patient in question. FP > Eva > snipped... > > Ummm, aren't you just using technical jargon to describe the same thing I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think when people talk about habituation, they are referring to a > state where one hears a noise all the time and nothing else. That isn't what habituation means. It has been defined for you, but you choose to ignore the definition. > As > someone who went through it, I was experiencing both a high pitched [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > findings of all that cited 'controlled' studies, I went for a couple of > acupuncture treatments But the effectiveness of acupuncture has been demonstrated scientifically. >which took care of my nerve discomfort and > softened my T noise. I don't think I could have achieved that through > 'habituation'. I think it is morally irresponsible for a doctor to > preach habituation without personally diagnosing the T patient in > question. >From this forum, there does not seem to be a standard definition of habituation. Jim Chinnis talks about the diminishing effect of tinnitus, which I would interpret as the slow and gradual recovery of the body by itself. Thus if you say my defintion is wrong, then is it that the correct definition of habituation means the absence of exercises and the use of blood vessel dilating med during the habituation process? No matter how fanciful a term you may like to use, the fact of the matter remains most doctors don't know how to treat their T patients and as such have to resort to this suggestion. > > My definition of habituation does not mean suffering in silence or > > getting used to suffering. It means giving a body time to heal with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > frank > >From this forum, there does not seem to be a standard definition of > habituation. Jim Chinnis talks about the diminishing effect of > tinnitus, which I would interpret as the slow and gradual recovery of > the body by itself. He didn't mean recovery. Here is one definition, from Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary: "The method by which the nervous system reduces or inhibits responsiveness during repeated stimulation." Here is another definition from Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary: "the gradual adaptation to a stimulus or to the environment." It isn't about recovery. It is about adaptation. The system doesn't go back to its old state. It moves on to a new state. > Thus if you say my defintion is wrong, then is it > that the correct definition of habituation means the absence of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > matter remains most doctors don't know how to treat their T patients > and as such have to resort to this suggestion. When a doctor talks about habituation, he means he knows habituation can and does occur. We know the brain does make these adjustments. > > > My definition of habituation does not mean suffering in silence or > > > getting used to suffering. It means giving a body time to heal with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > frank snipped... > When a doctor talks about habituation, he means he knows habituation can > and does occur. We know the brain does make these adjustments. We know that over time whatever that causes T may recover slowly too... > snipped... > > > When a doctor talks about habituation, he means he knows habituation can > > and does occur. We know the brain does make these adjustments. > > We know that over time whatever that causes T may recover slowly too... Yes, but that isn't relevant to the discussion of habituation. > > snipped... > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, but that isn't relevant to the discussion of habituation. Why is it irrelevant? Perhaps so-called habituation is the slow recovery of whatever that causes T. > > > snipped... > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why is it irrelevant? Perhaps so-called habituation is the slow > recovery of whatever that causes T. Habituation isn't recovery. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.