MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969367596 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v9n2p62

Impact of a Neuro-Cognitive Intervention on Students’ Cognitive Functions: Assessments in a Government School Setting in South India

2019· article· en· W2969367596 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Madhavi Bongarala, R. R. Ross, R. Manjunatha, N. S. Nagaraja, Krishnamurthy Jayanna

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRecallCognitionStroop effectCognitive testAffect (linguistics)Test (biology)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence indicates that cognitive deficits can affect students’ performance in schools. An effort to enhance cognitive skills through integration of a neuro-cognitive training called ‘Brighter Minds’, was made in the government schools of South India during 2017-18. 110 students went through a pre and post training evaluation, using a mixed methods study design to assess changes in attention, observation and memory. Tools such as Make a Trail and Stroop test to assess attention, Word Recall and Visual stimulus tests for memory and acustomized tool to assess changes in observation were used. Focus group discussions were conducted to understand teachers’ experience and acceptance of the training. Paired t-tests demonstrated statistically significant gains in all the three cognitive traits. The average time taken to complete the trail tests significantly reduced after the training (Trail A: 59.3 s to 47.5 s; Trail B: 156 s to 120 s. p < 0.001). The average number of correct items read out in the Stroop test improved significantly. More students were able to observe deeper aspects of the test object (23 Vs 40, p < 0.001). On intuition tests, average score of correct observations went up significantly from 6.7 to 9.6 objects. Memory assessments revealed significant improvements in verbal recall (both immediate and delayed) and visual recognition, but marginal improvements in visual retention. The teachers reported changes in student’s motivation, discipline and participation. The training was seamlessly rolled out by the teachers during regular hours and led to improvements in students' cognitive abilities. The cognitive trainings offer promise to complement current efforts in enhance learning outcomes among students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207