Behavioral Animal Model of the Emotional Response to Tinnitus and Hearing Loss
- 474 Downloads
Increased prevalence of emotional distress is associated with tinnitus and hearing loss. The underlying mechanisms of the negative emotional response to tinnitus and hearing loss remain poorly understood, and it is challenging to disentangle the emotional consequences of hearing loss from those specific to tinnitus in listeners experiencing both. We addressed these questions in laboratory rats using three common rodent anxiety screening assays: elevated plus maze, open field test, and social interaction test. Open arm activity in the elevated plus maze decreased substantially after one trial in controls, indicating its limited utility for comparing pre- and post-treatment behavior. Open field exploration and social interaction behavior were consistent across multiple sessions in control animals. Individual sound-exposed and salicylate-treated rats showed a range of phenotypes in the open field, including reduced entries into the center in some subjects and reduced locomotion overall. In rats screened for tinnitus, less locomotion was associated with higher tinnitus scores. In salicylate-treated animals, locomotion was correlated with age. Sound-exposed and salicylate-treated rats also showed reduced social interaction. These results suggest that open field exploratory activity is a selective measure for identifying tinnitus distress in individual animals, whereas social interaction reflects the general effects of hearing loss. This animal model will facilitate future studies of the structural and functional changes in the brain pathways underlying emotional distress associated with hearing dysfunction, as well as development of novel interventions to ameliorate or prevent negative emotional responses.
Keywordstinnitus distress anxiety depression hearing loss sound exposure salicylate
Supported by grants from the Tinnitus Research Consortium, Action on Hearing Loss, National Institutes of Health grant DC005211, a gift from Liquing Zeng, and the David M. Rubenstein Fund for Hearing Research. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Davis A, Rafaie EA (2000) Epidemiology of tinnitus. Tinnitus handbook:1–23Google Scholar
- Gould TD, Dao DT, Kovacsics CE (2009) The open field test. In: Gould TD (ed) Mood and anxiety related phenotypes in mice: characterization using behavioral tests. Humana Press, Totowa, p 1–20Google Scholar
- Jones A, May BJ (2016) Improving the reliability of tinnitus screening in laboratory animals. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol:1–13Google Scholar
- Manikandan S, Padma MK, Srikumar R, Parthasarathy NJ, Muthuvel A, Devi RS (2006) Effects of chronic noise stress on spatial memory of rats in relation to neuronal dendritic alteration and free radical-imbalance in hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex. Neurosci Lett 399:17–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pattyn T, Van Den Eede F, Vanneste S, Cassiers L, Veltman DJ, Van De Heyning P, Sabbe BC (2016) Tinnitus and anxiety disorders: a review. Hear Res 333:255–265Google Scholar
- Ropp TJ, Tiedemann KL, Young ED, May BJ (2014) Effects of unilateral acoustic trauma on tinnitus-related spontaneous activity in the inferior colliculus. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15(6):1007-1022Google Scholar
- Rygula R, Abumaria N, Flügge G, Fuchs E, Rüther E, Havemann-Reinecke U (2005) Anhedonia and motivational deficits in rats: impact of chronic social stress. Behav Brain Res 162(1):127–34Google Scholar
- Valle FP (1970) Effects of strain, sex, and illumination on open-field behavior of rats. Am J Psychol:103–111Google Scholar
- Van Dijken HH, Tilders FJ, Olivier B, Mos J (1992) Effects of anxiolytic and antidepressant drugs on longlasting behavioural deficits resulting from one short stress experience in male rats. Psychopharmacology 109(4):395–402Google Scholar
- Walsh RN, Cummins RA (1976) The open-field test: A critical review. Psychol Bull 83(3):482Google Scholar