Cognitive intervention through the use of origami: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Origami, the Japanese art of paper folding, has been proposed as a therapeutic tool for stimulating skills such as concentration, visuospatial processing, and memory. To map the scientific literature on the effects of origami on cognitive processes, with a focus on intervention protocols A systematic review was conducted across nine databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycNET, Embase, Scopus, Scielo, Ebsco Host, BVS, BDTD), with searches initiated on September 10, 2023. Empirical studies were included if they employed origami as an intervention in adults and used neuropsychological assessment tools. Theoretical studies, case reports, and those lacking cognitive evaluation were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and data were analyzed through narrative synthesis. Two studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing a total of 323 university students aged 18 to 33. One study involved an in-person session assessing mental imagery and spatial performance, while the other was conducted online, evaluating mental rotation and memory. Both studies reported modest improvements in visuospatial skills. The evidence suggests specific positive effects of origami, although limited by homogeneous samples, lack of three-dimensional models, and absence of clinical groups. Origami demonstrates potential as a complementary therapeutic resource for cognitive stimulation. Further robust and diverse studies are recommended to explore executive functions, attention, and working memory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".