MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415737211 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v15n2p23

Cognitive Task Characteristics and Frontal Pole Activation: fNIRS Evidence

2025· article· W4415737211 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nobuki Watanabe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)CognitionElementary cognitive taskCognitive systemsSelective attention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pilot study investigated frontal pole activity during cognitive and playful tasks in a nine-year-old participant using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Four tasks, including Hyakumasu Calculation, Suika Game, Puyo Puyo, and ScratchJr, were performed over ten days, yielding a total of 40 sessions. Oxy-Hb changes in channels seven to ten were analyzed using paired t-tests with false discovery rate correction. After correction, significant differences appeared in four comparisons: Hyakumasu Calculation elicited greater activity than Puyo Puyo (ch7, ch9) and Suika Game (ch9), while Puyo Puyo showed reduced activity compared to ScratchJr (ch8), all with large effect sizes. Other comparisons indicated medium to large effect sizes but did not remain significant after correction. These findings suggest that frontal pole activity varies with task characteristics. Educationally, alternating high-load tasks (e.g., calculation) and low-load play tasks (e.g., puzzle games) may optimize cognitive performance. However, the single-subject design restricts generalizability, requiring studies with larger samples and longer durations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207