Training with a three‐dimensional multiple object‐tracking (3D‐<scp>MOT</scp>) paradigm improves attention in students with a neurodevelopmental condition: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of attention training paradigms is influenced by many factors, including the specificity of targeted cognitive processes, accuracy of outcome measures, accessibility to specialized populations, and adaptability to user capability. These issues are increasingly significant when working with children diagnosed with neurodevelopmental conditions that are characterized by attentional difficulties. This study investigated the efficacy of training attention in students with neurodevelopmental conditions using a novel three-dimensional Multiple Object-Tracking (3D-MOT) task. All students (ages 6-18 years) performed the Conners Continuous Performance Task (CPT-3) as a baseline measure of attention. They were then equally and randomly assigned to one of three groups: a treatment group, (3D-MOT); an active control group (visual strategy/math-based game, 2048); and a treatment as usual group. Students were trained on their respective tasks for a total of 15 training sessions over a five-week period and then reassessed on the CPT-3. Results showed that post-training CPT-3 performance significantly improved from baseline for participants in the treatment group only. This improvement indicates that training with 3D-MOT increased attentional abilities in students with neurodevelopmental conditions. These results suggest that training attention with a non-verbal, visual-based task is feasible in a school setting and accessible to atypically developing students with attentional difficulties.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".