A randomized controlled trial of working memory and processing speed training in schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although prior research has shown that cognitive training may improve cognition for schizophrenia patients, it is currently unclear which domains of cognition should be targeted in training. One suggestion is to target low- or mid-level cognitive processes. In particular, working memory (WM) and processing speed (PS) have been named as two key areas of impairment in schizophrenia, and two domains of cognition that are linked to higher-order cognition and daily functioning. This study aimed to investigate the near-transfer (transfer of gains to related contexts), far-transfer (transfer of gains to unrelated contexts), and real-world gains associated with WM and PS training in schizophrenia. METHODS: Eighty-three participants with schizophrenia were recruited and randomly assigned to computerized WM training, PS training, or a no-training control group. Outcome measures included WM, PS, fluid intelligence, executive functioning, social cognition, and daily functioning and symptoms. RESULTS: PS training led to significant gains in untrained PS tasks, as well as gains in far-transfer tasks that required speed of processing. WM training did not lead to gains in untrained WM tasks and showed inconsistent effects on some far-transfer tasks. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest some benefit of domain-specific cognitive training, specifically PS training, in schizophrenia. Far-transfer of gains to other cognitive domains and to real-world functioning may not occur after targeted WM or PS training, though non-specific effects (e.g. through behavioral activation, increased motivation) may lead to improvements in some tasks. Future studies should continue to investigate the mechanisms by which cognitive training may enhance cognition and functioning in schizophrenia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".