Visuospatial Working Memory Capacity in the Brain After Working Memory Training in College Students With ADHD: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: ADHD has been associated with persistent problems of working memory. This study investigated the efficacy of an intensive and adaptive computerized working memory treatment (CWMT) at behavioral and neural levels. Method: College students ( n = 89; 40 females) with ADHD were randomized into a standard-length CWMT (45 min/session, 25 sessions, n = 29), shortened-length CWMT (15 min/session, 25 sessions, n = 32), and a waitlist group ( n = 28). Both CWMT groups received treatment for 5 days a week for 5 weeks. Lab sessions before and after CWMT assessed electroencephalography (EEG) indicators of working memory, behavioral indicators of working memory performance, and ADHD symptomatology. Results: No evidence was found for neural or any other behavioral transfer effects of improvement for the CWMT treatment groups over the active control or waitlist group. Conclusion: Our study does not provide evidence for the benefits of CWMT at neural or behavioral levels.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".