These results suggest that RIG can be used as a relatively simple predictor for other tools and in particular seems promising as a potential screening tool for selective attention in healthy aging.

Visual and auditory systems interact at both cortical and subcortical levels. Studies suggest a highly context-specific cross-modal modulation of the auditory system by the visual system. The present study builds on this work by sampling data from 17 young healthy adults to test whether visual speech stimuli evoke different responses in the auditory efferent system compared to visual non-speech stimuli. The descending cortical influences on medial olivocochlear (MOC) activity were indirectly assessed by examining the effects of contralateral suppression of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) at 1, 2, 3 and 4 kHz under three conditions: (a) in the absence of any contralateral noise (Baseline), (b) contralateral noise + observing facial speech gestures related to productions of vowels /a/ and /u/ and (c) contralateral noise + observing facial non-speech gestures related to smiling and frowning. The results are based on 7 individuals whose data met strict recording criteria and indicated a significant difference in TEOAE suppression between observing speech gestures relative to the non-speech gestures, but only at the 1 kHz frequency. These results suggest that observing a speech gesture compared to a non-speech gesture may trigger a difference in MOC activity, possibly to enhance peripheral neural encoding. If such findings can be reproduced in future research, sensory perception models and theories positing the downstream convergence of unisensory streams of information in the cortex may need to be revised.

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) dominates quantitative data analysis, but its use is controversial and has been heavily criticized. The American Psychological Association has advocated the reporting of effect sizes (ES), confidence intervals (CIs), and statistical power analysis to complement NHST results to provide a more comprehensive understanding of research findings. The aim of this paper is to carry out a sample survey of statistical reporting practices in two journals with the highest h5-index scores in the areas of developmental disability and rehabilitation. Using a checklist that includes critical recommendations by American Psychological Association, we examined 100 randomly selected articles out of 456 articles reporting inferential statistics in the year 2013 in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (JADD) and Research in Developmental Disabilities (RDD). The results showed that for both journals, ES were reported only half the time (JADD 59.3%; RDD 55.87%). These findings are similar to psychology journals, but are in stark contrast to ES reporting in educational journals (73%). Furthermore, a priori power and sample size determination (JADD 10%; RDD 6%), along with reporting and interpreting precision measures (CI: JADD 13.33%; RDD 16.67%), were the least reported metrics in these journals, but not dissimilar to journals in other disciplines. To advance the science in developmental disability and rehabilitation and to bridge the research-to-practice divide, reforms in statistical reporting, such as providing supplemental measures to NHST, are clearly needed.