Effects of processing speed training on cognitive functions and neural systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Processing speed (PS) is an individual cognitive ability that measures the speed with which individuals execute cognitive tasks, particularly elementary cognitive tasks. PS has been proposed to be a key cognitive component, along with working memory, and is psychologically and clinically important. Various types of speed training affect performance of untrained cognitive measures. In this article, we review studies of PS training or training involving speeded tasks and describe the methodologies along with the psychological and neuroimaging findings related to PS training. There are various types of PS (speed) training tasks. Evidence indicates that PS training can enhance performance on untrained speeded tasks. However, the extent of transfer may vary depending on the methodology. A particular type of speed training seems to affect mental health in older adults. Neuroimaging studies of speed training have shown that the effects of speed training on neural mechanisms may vary depending on the training tasks. Adaptive procedures to modulate the difficulties of training tasks based on a subject's performance by modulating the task speed can be applied to various cognitive tasks, and these procedures can perhaps be used to develop training protocols for enhancing various cognitive functions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it