ReviewDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience2012
The timing of educational investment: a neuroscientific perspective.
Review in Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Child mental health problems as a risk factor for academic underachievement: A multi-informant, population-based study.Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- App-based support for parental self-efficacy in the first 1,000 days: A randomized control trial.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- PROTOCOL: Early childhood education programs for improving the development and achievement of low-income children: a systematic review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Stability and Variability in Aesthetic Experience: A Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Review
- A case for neuroscience in mathematics education.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2014Article
- Cognitive activities and cognitive performance in middle-aged adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease.Psychology and aging · 2013Article
- At the nexus of neuroscience and education.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Economic models of investment in human capital sometimes refer to neuroscience as a means to support their underlying assumptions regarding human development. These assumptions have a crucial influence on the policy implications the models generate. We review the extent to which the neuroscience of development can be used to support a "learning begets learning" principle of human capital accumulation. We conclude that, although early neural development can be considered as foundational, it cannot be considered as a unitary phenomenon that proceeds in continuous fashion. Furthermore, the concept of the sensitive period, which is often used associated with the principle, suggests benefits of investment depend upon an individual's circumstances and developmental history, and particularly whether this can be classified as normal. A more recent model of investment has involved two different types of abilities, with outcomes demonstrating the value of including more sophisticated assumptions about human development. We conclude that, while current discussions of policy would benefit from a more careful interpretation of existing models, the potential for future work combining modern neuroscientific understanding with economic theory is considerable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.