Cognitive control training with domain-general response inhibition does not change children’s brains or behavior
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive control is required to organize thoughts and actions and is critical for the pursuit of long-term goals. Childhood cognitive control relates to other domains of cognitive functioning and predicts later-life success and well-being. In this study, we used a randomized controlled trial to test whether cognitive control can be improved through a pre-registered 8-week intervention in 235 children aged 6-13 years targeting response inhibition and whether this leads to changes in multiple behavioral and neural outcomes compared to a response speed training. We show long-lasting improvements of closely related measures of cognitive control at the 1-year follow-up; however, training had no impact on any behavioral outcomes (decision-making, academic achievement, mental health, fluid reasoning and creativity) or neural outcomes (task-dependent and intrinsic brain function and gray and white matter structure). Bayesian analyses provide strong evidence of absent training effects. We conclude that targeted training of response inhibition does little to change children's brains or their behavior.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it