MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995744845 · doi:10.1002/brb3.196

Brain training: rationale, methods, and pilot data for a specific visuomotor/visuospatial activity program to change progressive cognitive decline

2013· article· en· W1995744845 on OpenAlexafffund
William J. Tippett, Mireille N. Rizkalla

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Behavior · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsCognitive trainingCognitionCognitive declinePsychologyCognitive skillEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performancePopulationCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceDementiaMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Research in the field of the aging brain has evolved to the extent that it is now commonly understood that actively engaging in cognitive tasks provides the potential of being beneficial in affecting the trajectory of age-related cognitive decline. What remains to be examined is the extent, and type, of program required to effect change in aging cognitively impaired individuals. METHODS: To address this issue, a cognitive program focusing on the use of visuospatial (VS)/visuomotor (VM) elements was applied to a group of six older individuals with identified progressive cognitive impairments. It was hypothesized that using tasks with VS and VM components may be beneficial in supporting overall brain performance, and subsequently assist individuals to perform well in various cognitive and behavioral tasks. RESULTS: Results showed that on many evaluative measures individuals remained stable, or improved in performance with medium-to-large effect sizes (e.g., 0.3-1.0). Thus, in a cognitively impaired population sample where decline would be the norm, our participants improved or remained stable. CONCLUSION: The novel application of a VS/VM training program shows promise in addressing global cognitive decline, by targeting a brain area susceptible to early disruptions and providing it with additional and ongoing stimulative tasks in an effort to bolster its functioning and subsequently overall brain functioning.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.233
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain and BehaviorSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207