Adaptive Cognitive Training Enhances Executive Control and Visuospatial and Verbal Working Memory in Beginning Readers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we examined whether children’s working memory could be enhanced by adaptive cognitive training (ACT) and whether training outcomes would relate to behavioral self-regulation, a measure of executive control (EC) and certain pre-reading outcomes (phoneme awareness and letter knowledge). Children from economically disadvantaged communities were randomly assigned to an ACT (n = 23) or a wait-list control (n = 27) group. ACT consisted of an average of 20 minutes per day of adaptive visuospatial working memory training (Cogmed-JM) for up to 25 days at the beginning of the school year. ACT significantly improved performance in near-transfer (untrained visuospatial test) and far-transfer (tests of verbal working memory and behavioral self-regulation). However, ACT had no direct effects on either measure of pre-reading skill. Our findings suggest that ACT may indirectly help children at risk for later reading problems to benefit from instruction opportunities by developing self-regulation and memory skills.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".