Awareness and Cognition: The Role of Awareness Training in Child Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the role of awareness in cognition and the impact of training of awareness. Two groups of children ages 5 to 11 were studied (N = 126). One group included children who received training of awareness in the form of either the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique or Word of Wisdom, a related technique for children under 10 years of age (n = 60). The main variables were 2 mental capacities defined in terms of awareness, Working Memory and Attention, and Cognitive Competence, defined in terms of Piaget’s conservation tasks. Regression analyses found awareness capacities to significantly account for cognitive competence. Advanced cognitive performance was found associated with awareness training, and this performance was related to length of practice of the techniques for 4 out of 7 cognitive measures. Awareness is a construct that offers new conceptual and research avenues. Perhaps the most dramatic phenomenon observed by child psychologists is the increase of mental competence during pre- and early school years. This is most markedly demonstrated in Piaget’s classical conservation tasks. We find 4-year olds believing that there are more checkers in a row that is spread out. Three or so years later, these children not only laugh at such a mistake, they are also not fooled into believing that the amount of juice increases when it is poured into a glass that is narrow and tall. Currently, this interesting change in mental competence is examined predominantly within the Information Processing framework. Starting in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the growth of the child’s mental accomplishments has been related to the growth of capacities to take in and manipulate information (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Researchers are still struggling with the exact definitions and
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".