Does Generalization Occur Following Computer-Based Cognitive Retraining?—An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer-based cognitive retraining (CBCR) intervention has gained great popularity in recent years. This study aimed to investigate the occurrence of skill generalization to daily living task for individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI) after completion of eight modules of a commercially available CBCR program, the Parrot Software. The study investigated changes in individuals' global cognition as measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and changes in individuals' performance during a medication-box sorting task, a novel instrumental activity of daily living. The medication-box sorting task resembled real life medication management with daily prescribed and over-the-counter medications. Twelve individuals with ABI from a community-based program completed the study. Results indicated that CBCR intervention brought about improvement in global cognition, but the improvement did not appear in any particular cognitive domain. Additionally, the gains in global cognition failed to enhance performance in the medication-box sorting task. This exploratory study demonstrated that while CBCR may be a promising intervention for improving global cognition in individuals with ABI, additional intervention might be needed for generalization to occur to a novel daily task. Future studies should look for the ultimate therapeutic outcome from CBCR interventions or include interventions that could bridge the gap between CBCR intervention and performance improvement in daily living occupations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".