Training cognitive skills: how mental excercises and culture influence attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention, a multifaceted cognitive skill, is malleable in the face of both exogenous and endogenous factors. From explicit brain training exercises to subconscious sociocultural influences, environmental factors have the power to modify individual attentional control. In turn, a solid grasp of attentional resources can manifest itself in a variety of ways, from improved performance on cognitive tasks and behavioural regulation to successful hypnotic induction. In the former case, neuroscientists have shown that exercises targeting the development and practice of attentional skills have the potential to enhance other cognitive functions, such as working memory and inhibition of responses, as well as increase behavioural and emotional regulation. In relation to the latter case, transcultural psychiatrists have reported that cultural practices inducing altered states of consciousness, such as sweat lodges and chanting, may also exercise attention and thus shape response to hypnotic suggestions. The following experimental study delves into the claims of brain training as a form of cognitive enhancement and rehabilitation tool for children, while the subsequent narrative review examines the methodologies used in studies comparing cross-cultural response to hypnotic experiences. Keywords: attention, brain training, hypnosis, transcultural psychiatry
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".