Effect of the Brain Balance Program® on Cognitive Performance in Children and Adolescents with Developmental and Attentional Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed the cognitive task performance of children and adolescents with developmental and attentional issues, before and after participation in the Brain Balance® (BB) program. The program consisted of three 1-hour sessions/week (sensorimotor stimulation and academic activities) with other multimodal activities, for 3 months. Participants were compared to a control group that had the same underlying demographic and phenotypical features but did not yet complete the program (participated on average for 27 days). For all ages (4-6 and 7+ years), we found a significant main effect of group, such that BB groups improved overall more than controls (CTRLs). More specifically, BB groups improved on all cognitive tests (three tests for ages 4-6 years; 12 tests for ages 7+ years), whereas CTRLs only improved on one test. These data support the potential of multimodal training programs toward the overarching goal of improving cognitive performance in children with developmental and 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".