Programming ability prediction: Applying an attention-based convolutional neural network to functional near-infrared spectroscopy analyses of working memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although theoretical studies have suggested that working-memory capacity is crucial for academic achievement, few empirical studies have directly investigated the relationship between working-memory capacity and programming ability, and no direct neural evidence has been reported to support this relationship. The present study aimed to fill this gap in the literature. Using a between-subject design, 17 programming novices and 18 advanced students performed an n-back working-memory task. During the experiment, their prefrontal hemodynamic responses were measured using a 48-channel functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) device. The results indicated that the advanced students had a higher working-memory capacity than the novice students, validating the relationship between programming ability and working memory. The analysis results also showed that the hemodynamic responses in the prefrontal cortex can be used to discriminate between novices and advanced students. Additionally, we utilized an attention-based convolutional neural network to analyze the spatial domains of the fNIRS signals and demonstrated that the left prefrontal cortex was more important than other brain regions for programming ability prediction. This result was consistent with the results of statistical analysis, which in turn improved the interpretability of neural networks.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".