Activation of the Frontal Pole Using Children’s Video Games: Support for Children’s Well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective support intended to promote children’s well-being has gained scholarly attention worldwide. Well-being is composed of complex elements. Of these elements, the promotion of executive function, which coordinates cognitive activities, via an effective method is important. Regarding the frontal pole in the anterior part of the prefrontal cortex, scholars presume that it is involved in advanced abilities, such as metacognition, and is essential for well-being. In today’s digital society, video games are appealing to children. Thus, a possibility exists that children can achieve certain aspects of well-being, such as a sense of achievement, perseverance, and happiness, by playing video games. In this regard, evidence that video games can be used to activate the prefrontal cortex is accumulating. In light of this discussion, this study hypothesizes that playing video games may affect the frontal pole and analyzes the brain activation of the frontal pole using video games compared with a mental abacus activity. The results demonstrate that playing through an educational game called Big Brain Academy: Brain vs. Brain exhibited more activation potential than mental abacus in many points.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".