ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2020
Specificity and Durability of Changes in Auditory Processing Efficiency After Targeted Cognitive Training in Individuals With Recent-Onset Psychosis.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Durable Cognitive Gains and Symptom Improvement Are Observed in Individuals With Recent-Onset Schizophrenia 6 Months After a Randomized Trial of Auditory Training Completed Remotely.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2022Trial
- Early auditory processing dysfunction in schizophrenia: Mechanisms and implications.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2023Review
- Auditory Domain Sensitivity and Neuroplasticity-Based Targeted Cognitive Training in Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe previously demonstrated that the high heterogeneity of response to computerized Auditory Training (AT) in psychosis can be ascribed to individual differences in sensory processing efficiency and neural plasticity. In particular, we showed that Auditory Processing Speed (APS) serves as a behavioral measure of target engagement, with faster speed predicting greater transfer effects to untrained cognitive domains. Here, we investigate whether the ability of APS to function as a proxy for target engagement is unique to AT, or if it applies to other training interventions, such as Executive Functioning Training (EFT). Additionally, we examine whether changes in APS are durable after these two forms of training.
methodsOne hundred and twenty-five participants with Recent Onset Psychosis (ROP) were randomized to AT (n = 66) and EFT (n = 59), respectively. APS was captured at baseline, after treatment, and at 6-month follow-up. Mixed models repeated measures analysis with restricted maximum likelihood was used to examine whether training condition differentiated APS trajectories. Within-group correlational analyses were used to study the relationship between APS and performance improvements in each of the training exercises.
resultsThe two groups were matched for age, gender, education, and baseline APS. Participants showed high inter-individual variability in APS at each time point. The mixed model showed a significant effect of time (F = 5.99,
conclusionsParticipant-specific speed in processing basic auditory stimuli greatly varies in ROP, and strongly influences the magnitude of response to auditory but not executive functioning training. Importantly, enhanced auditory processing efficiency persists 6 months after AT, suggesting the durability of neuroplasticity processes induced by this form of training. Future studies should aim to identify markers of target engagement and durability for cognitive training interventions that target sensory modalities beyond the auditory domain.
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.