Auditory and cognitive training for cognition in adults with hearing loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of auditory training and cognitive training to improve cognitive function in adults with hearing loss. A literature search of academic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Scopus) and gray literature (e.g., OpenGrey) identified relevant articles published up to January 25, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or repeated measures designs were included. Outcome effects were computed as Hedge’s g and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42017076680). Nine studies, five auditory training, and four cognitive training met the inclusion criteria. Following auditory training, the pooled effect was small and statistically significant for both working memory (g = 0.21; 95% CI [0.05, 0.36]) and overall cognition (g = 0.19; 95% CI [0.07, 0.31]). Following cognitive training, the pooled effect for working memory was small and statistically significant (g = 0.34; 95% CI [0.16, 0.53]), and the pooled effect for overall cognition was large and significant (g = 1.03; 95% CI [0.41, 1.66]). However, this was dependent on the classification of training approach. Sensitivity analyses revealed no statistical difference between the effectiveness of auditory and cognitive training for improving cognition upon removal of a study that used a combined auditory–cognitive approach, which showed a very large effect. Overall certainty in the estimation of effect was “low” for auditory training and “very low” for cognitive training. High-quality RCTs are needed to determine which training stimuli will provide optimal conditions to improve cognition in adults with hearing loss

Multiplanar lumbopelvic control in patients with low back pain: is multiplanar assessment better than single plane assessment in discriminating between patients and healthy controls?

Objectives: Patients with low back pain (LBP) commonly have lumbopelvic control deficits. Lumbopelvic assessment during sagittal motion is incorporated into commonly used clinical examination algorithms for Treatment Based Classification. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether combined assessment of lumbopelvic control during sagittal and frontal plane motion discriminates between people with and without LBP better than single plane assessment alone. Methods: Nineteen patients with LBP and 18 healthy control participants volunteered for this study. The active straight leg raise (ASLR) and active hip abduction (AHAbd) tests were used to assess lumbopelvic control during sagittal and frontal plane motion, respectively. The tests were scored as positive or negative using published scoring criteria. Contingency tables were created for each test alone and for the combined tests (both positive/both negative) with presence/absence of LBP as the reference standard to calculate accuracy statistics of sensitivity (sn), specificity (sp), likelihood (+LR and −LR), and diagnostic odds ratios (OR). Results: Active straight leg raise and AHAbd tests alone had sn of 0·63, 0·74, respectively, sp of 0·61, 0·50, respectively, and OR of 2·7, 2·8, respectively. The combined tests had sn = 0·89, sp = 0·60, and OR = 12·0. Forty percent of patients with LBP had control deficits in both planes of motion. Discussion: The AHAbd and ALSR tests appear to have greater diagnostic discrimination when used in combination than when used independently. A percentage of patients with LBP had control deficits in both planes, while others demonstrated uniplanar deficits only. These findings highlight the importance of multiplanar assessment in patients with LBP

The relative salience of facial features when differentiating faces based on an interference paradigm

Research on face recognition and social judgment usually addresses the manipulation of facial features (eyes, nose, mouth, etc.). Using a procedure based on a Stroop-like task, Montepare and Opeyo (J Nonverbal Behav 26(1):43-59, 2002) established a hierarchy of the relative salience of cues based on facial attributes when differentiating faces. Using the same perceptual interference task, we established a hierarchy of facial features. Twenty-three participants (13 men and 10 women) volunteered for the experiment to compare pairs of frontal faces. The participants had to judge if the eyes, nose, mouth and chin in the pair of images were the same or different. The factors manipulated were the target-distractive factor (4 face components 9 3 distractive factors), interference (absent vs. present) and correct answer (the same vs. different). The analysis of reaction times and errors showed that the eyes and mouth were processed before the chin and nose, thus highlighting the critical importance of the eyes and mouth, as shown by previous research