MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225086338 · doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.812760

Cognitive and Linguistic Effects of Working Memory Training in Children With Corresponding Deficits

2022· article· en· W4225086338 on OpenAlexaff
Laura J. Pauls, Lisa M. D. Archibald

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking memory trainingWorking memoryPsychologyCognitive psychologyReading (process)Transfer of trainingCognitionCognitive trainingDevelopmental psychologyIntervention (counseling)Transfer of learningMultiple baseline designShort-term memoryLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Working memory training has been found to result in improvements on tasks similar to those involved in the training (near transfer) but show limited impact on everyday skills such as language or academic abilities (far transfer). Previous research has largely focused on those with a broad range of skills, and examined group level responses. This study uses a single subject design to examine the effect of working memory training on both working memory and related domains in children with working memory impairment. Seven children (8–11 years old) with a working memory impairment completed 20 sessions of computerized working memory intervention. Data revealed near transfer for all participants. Evidence of far transfer to improvements in language, reading, or math was observed for approximately half of the participants on individual measures. Three participants showed convincing but modest training effects across multiple measures. A combination of factors appeared to influence far transfer including age, training intensity, and baseline measures.

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)0.001
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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in EducationSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207