Parametric information about eye movements is sent to the ears.

Eye movements alter the relationship between the visual and auditory spatial scenes. Signals related to eye movements affect neural pathways from the ear through auditory cortex and beyond, but how these signals contribute to computing the locations of sounds with respect to the visual scene is poorly understood. Here, we evaluated the information contained in eye movement-related eardrum oscillations (EMREOs), pressure changes recorded in the ear canal that occur in conjunction with simultaneous eye movements. We show that EMREOs contain parametric information about horizontal and vertical eye displacement as well as initial/final eye position with respect to the head. The parametric information in the horizontal and vertical directions can be modeled as combining linearly, allowing accurate prediction of the EMREOs associated with oblique (diagonal) eye movements. Target location can also be inferred from the EMREO signals recorded during eye movements to those targets. We hypothesize that the (currently unknown) mechanism underlying EMREOs could impose a two-dimensional eye-movement-related transfer function on any incoming sound, permitting subsequent processing stages to compute the positions of sounds in relation to the visual scene.

Individual similarities and differences in eye-movement-related eardrum oscillations (EMREOs).

We recently discovered a unique type of otoacoustic emission (OAE) time-locked to the onset (and offset) of saccadic eye movements and occurring in the absence of external sound (Gruters et al., 2018). How and why these eye-movement-related eardrum oscillations (EMREOs) are generated is unknown, with a role in visual-auditory integration being the likeliest candidate. Clues to both the drivers of EMREOs and their purpose can be gleaned by examining responses in normal hearing human subjects. Do EMREOs occur in all individuals with normal hearing? If so, what components of the response occur most consistently? Understanding which attributes of EMREOs are similar across participants and which show more variability will provide the groundwork for future comparisons with individuals with hearing abnormalities affecting the ear's various motor components. Here we report that in subjects with normal hearing thresholds and normal middle ear function, all ears show (a) measurable EMREOs (mean: 58.7 dB SPL; range 45-67 dB SPL for large contralateral saccades), (b) a phase reversal for contra- versus ipsilaterally-directed saccades, (c) a large peak in the signal occurring soon after saccade onset, (d) an additional large peak time-locked to saccade offset and (e) evidence that saccade duration is encoded in the signal. We interpret the attributes of EMREOs that are most consistent across subjects as the ones that are most likely to play an essential role in their function. The individual differences likely reflect normal variation in individuals' auditory system anatomy and physiology, much like traditional measures of auditory function such as auditory-evoked OAEs, tympanometry and auditory-evoked potentials. Future work will compare subjects with different types of auditory dysfunction to population data from normal hearing subjects. Overall, these findings provide important context for the widespread observations of visual- and eye-movement related signals found in cortical and subcortical auditory areas of the brain.

Individual similarities and differences in eye-movement-related eardrum oscillations (EMREOs).

We recently discovered a unique type of low-frequency otoacoustic emission (OAE) time-locked to the onset (and offset) of saccadic eye movements and occurring in the absence of external sound (Gruters et al., 2018). How and why these eye-movement-related eardrum oscillations (EMREOs) are generated is unknown, with a role in visual-auditory integration being the likeliest candidate. Clues to both the drivers of EMREOs and their purpose can be gleaned by examining responses in normal hearing human subjects. Do EMREOs occur in all individuals with normal hearing? If so, what components of the response occur most consistently? Understanding which attributes of EMREOs are similar across participants and which show more variability will provide the groundwork for future comparisons with individuals with hearing abnormalities affecting the ear's various motor components. Here we report that in subjects with normal hearing thresholds and normal middle ear function, all ears show (a) measurable EMREOs (mean: 58.7 dB SPL; range 45-67 dB SPL for large contralateral saccades), (b) a phase reversal for contra- versus ipsilaterally-directed saccades, (c) a large peak in the signal occurring soon after saccade onset, (d) an additional large peak time-locked to saccade offset and (e) evidence that saccade duration is encoded in the signal. We interpret the attributes of EMREOs that are most consistent across subjects as the ones that are most likely to play an essential role in their function. The individual differences likely reflect normal variation in individuals' auditory system anatomy and physiology, much like traditional measures of auditory function such as auditory-evoked OAEs, tympanometry and auditory-evoked potentials. Future work will compare subjects with different types of auditory dysfunction to population data from normal hearing subjects. Overall, these findings provide important context for the widespread observations of visual- and eye-movement related signals found in cortical and subcortical auditory areas of the brain.

Switching to Intranasal Esketamine Maintains the Antidepressant Response to Intravenous Racemic Ketamine Administration: A Case Series of 10 Patients.

PURPOSE: This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal (IN) esketamine as maintenance antidepressant therapy in patients who have demonstrated clinical improvement with off-label intravenous (IV) racemic ketamine for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: This is a retrospective case series of 10 consecutive outpatients with TRD who all had a clinically meaningful response when treated with IV racemic ketamine and were then switched to IN esketamine for maintenance therapy. Patient outcomes were assessed with the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire 9, and Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale at each visit. Adverse effects were assessed at each treatment. FINDINGS: Results indicated that 9 patients either maintained the benefit or showed greater improvement when transitioned to IN esketamine for antidepressant maintenance therapy. One patient had worsening of depression due to an acute psychosocial stressor but still improved from baseline IV racemic ketamine treatment. Six patients returned to work or pursued employment, and 4 patients with suicidal ideation remitted during IV racemic ketamine treatment and had no recurrence of suicidality with IN esketamine. No serious adverse reactions or tolerability issues were observed. IMPLICATIONS: This case series reports the outcomes of 10 severely ill patients with TRD who had a clinically meaningful response to IV racemic ketamine and demonstrated a maintenance of effect or continued improvement when transitioned to IN esketamine. Although this finding needs to be replicated in larger, controlled studies, this report provides promising results for patients who have safely and effectively switched to Food and Drug Administration-approved IN esketamine after receiving acute or maintenance depression treatment with off-label IV racemic ketamine.

Effect of impact factor and discipline on journal data sharing policies.

Data sharing is crucial to the advancement of science because it facilitates collaboration, transparency, reproducibility, criticism, and re-analysis. Publishers are well-positioned to promote sharing of research data by implementing data sharing policies. While there is an increasing trend toward requiring data sharing, not all journals mandate that data be shared at the time of publication. In this study, we extended previous work to analyze the data sharing policies of 447 journals across several scientific disciplines, including biology, clinical sciences, mathematics, physics, and social sciences. Our results showed that only a small percentage of journals require data sharing as a condition of publication, and that this varies across disciplines and Impact Factors. Both Impact Factors and discipline are associated with the presence of a data sharing policy. Our results suggest that journals with higher Impact Factors are more likely to have data sharing policies; use shared data in peer review; require deposit of specific data types into publicly available data banks; and refer to reproducibility as a rationale for sharing data. Biological science journals are more likely than social science and mathematics journals to require data sharing.