Systematic review of the effectiveness of innovative, gamified interventions for cognitive training in paediatric acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effectiveness of innovative, gamified interventions (i.e., Augmented Reality, Computer-Based Cognitive Retraining [CBCR], and Virtual Reality [VR] in conjunction with a Serious Game) for cognitive training in paediatric ABI was evaluated. Studies were identified on PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus; last searched 4 January 2022. Eligibility criteria were participants diagnosed with ABI and aged ≤ 18 years, experimental intervention to train cognition, cognition assessed pre- and post-intervention at: (1) The level of function, or (2) The level of activity, and written in English. ROB 2 and ROBINS-I were utilised to assess risk of bias. Extracted study characteristics were methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, and results. Seven studies were included, comprising six CBCR studies and one VR study, with 182 participants. Following CBCR: (1) Improvements were observed in several cognitive functions, but there was inconsistent evidence; (2) Improvements were reported in attention and executive functions (EF) at home and at school. Following VR: (1) Improvements were observed in attention and EF; (2) Not evaluated. Due to the small number of included studies with (relatively) small and heterogeneous samples, only a cautious interpretation of the evidence was provided. There is a need for carefully designed studies with more attention to inter-individual differences and generalisation to daily life.
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 | 0.011 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".