Cognitive training with adaptive algorithm improves cognitive ability in older people with MCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent discoveries indicating that the brain retains its ability to adapt and change throughout life have sparked interest in cognitive training (CT) as a possible means to postpone the development of dementia. Despite this, most research has focused on confirming the efficacy of training outcomes, with few studies examining the correlation between performance and results across various stages of training. In particular, the relationship between initial performance and the extent of improvement, the rate of learning, and the asymptotic performance level throughout the learning curve remains ambiguous. In this study, older adults underwent ten days of selective attention training using an adaptive algorithm, which enabled a detailed analysis of the learning curve's progression. Cognitive abilities were assessed before and after CT using the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The findings indicated that: (1) Initial performance is positively correlated with Learning amount and asymptotic performance level, and negatively correlated with learning speed; (2) Age is negatively correlated with learning speed, while it is positively correlated with the other three parameters. (3) Higher pre-training MMSE scores predicted higher post-training MMSE scores but less improvement; (4) Higher pre-training MoCA scores predicted higher post-training MoCA scores and less improvement; (5) The parameters of the learning curve did not correlate with performance on the MMSE or MoCA. These results indicate that: (1)Selective attention training using adaptive algorithms is an effective tool for cognitive intervention; (2) Older individuals with poor baseline cognitive abilities require more diversified cognitive training; (3) The study supports the compensation hypothesis.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".