Working Memory Training for Children Using the Adaptive, Self-Select, and Stepwise Approaches to Setting the Difficulty Level of Training Activities: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A common yet untested assumption of cognitive training in children is that activities should be adaptive, with difficulty adjusted to the individual's performance in order to maximize improvements on untrained tasks (known as transfer). Working memory training provides the ideal testbed to systematically examine this assumption as it is one of the most widely studied domains in the cognitive training literature, and is critical for children's learning, including following instructions and reasoning. OBJECTIVE: This trial aimed to examine children's outcomes of working memory training using adaptive, self-select (child selects difficulty level), and stepwise (difficulty level increases incrementally) approaches to setting the difficulty of training activities compared to an active control condition immediately and 6-month postintervention. While the aim is exploratory, we hypothesized that children allocated to a working memory training condition would show greater improvements: (1) on near transfer measures compared to intermediate and far transfer measures and (2) immediately postintervention compared to 6-month postintervention. METHODS: This double-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group randomized trial aimed to recruit 128 children aged 7 to 11 years from 1 metropolitan primary school in Melbourne, Australia. Following baseline testing, children were randomized into 1 of 4 conditions: adaptive, self-select, or stepwise working memory training, or active control. An experimental intervention embedded in Minecraft was developed for teachers to deliver in class over 2 consecutive weeks (10 × 20-minute sessions). The working memory training comprised 2 training activities with processing demands similar to daily activities: backward span and following instructions. The control comprised creative activities. Pre- and postintervention, children completed a set of working memory tests (near and intermediate transfer) and the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (far transfer) to determine training outcomes, as well as motivation questionnaires to determine if motivations toward learning and the intervention were similar across conditions. Caregivers completed the ADHD-Rating Scale-5 to measure their child's attention (far transfer). Statistical analysis will include traditional null hypothesis significance testing and Bayesian methods to quantify evidence for both the null and alternative hypotheses. RESULTS: Data collection concluded in December 2022. Data are currently being processed and analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will determine whether the adaptive approach to setting the difficulty of training activities maximizes cognitive training outcomes for children. This trial has several strengths: it adopts best practices for cognitive training studies (design, methods, and analysis plan); uses a range of measures to detect discrete levels of transfer; has a 6-month postintervention assessment; is appropriately powered; and uses an experimental working memory training intervention based on our current understanding of the cognitive mechanisms of training. Findings will inform future research and design of cognitive training interventions and highlight the value of the evidence-based principles of cognitive training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12621000990820; https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12621000990820.aspx. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/47496.
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 | 0.032 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.008 |
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".