Higher-order cognitive training effects on processing speed–related neural activity: a randomized trial
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
Higher-order cognitive training has shown to enhance performance in older adults, but the neural mechanisms underlying performance enhancement have yet to be fully disambiguated. This randomized trial examined changes in processing speed and processing speed-related neural activity in older participants (57-71 years of age) who underwent cognitive training (CT, N = 12) compared with wait-listed (WLC, N = 15) or exercise-training active (AC, N = 14) controls. The cognitive training taught cognitive control functions of strategic attention, integrative reasoning, and innovation over 12 weeks. All 3 groups worked through a functional magnetic resonance imaging processing speed task during 3 sessions (baseline, mid-training, and post-training). Although all groups showed faster reaction times (RTs) across sessions, the CT group showed a significant increase, and the WLC and AC groups showed significant decreases across sessions in the association between RT and BOLD signal change within the left prefrontal cortex (PFC). Thus, cognitive training led to a change in processing speed-related neural activity where faster processing speed was associated with reduced PFC activation, fitting previously identified neural efficiency profiles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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