ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2022
A Machine Learning Approach to Personalize Computerized Cognitive Training Interventions.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence in individualized cognitive training: A systematic review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- The underlying mechanisms of tDCS-Based cognitive enhancement in unpredictable task switching: A machine learning-based approach for EEG signal analysis.Neuroimage. Reports · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Approach for Predicting Older Adults' Responsiveness to Cognitive Training Interventions: Data from the ACTIVE Study.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- Rethinking the effects of working memory training on executive functions in schizophrenia: A machine learning approach.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Executive functions are a class of cognitive processes critical for purposeful goal-directed behavior. Cognitive training is the adequate stimulation of executive functions and has been extensively studied and applied for more than 20 years. However, there is still a lack of solid consensus in the scientific community about its potential to elicit consistent improvements in untrained domains. Individual differences are considered one of the most important factors of inconsistent reports on cognitive training benefits, as differences in cognitive functioning are both genetic and context-dependent, and might be affected by age and socioeconomic status. We here present a proof of concept based on the hypothesis that baseline individual differences among subjects would provide valuable information to predict the individual effectiveness of a cognitive training intervention. With a dataset from an investigation in which 73 6-year-olds trained their executive functions using an online software with a fixed protocol, freely available at www.matemarote.org.ar, we trained a support vector classifier that successfully predicted (average accuracy = 0.67, AUC = 0.707) whether a child would improve, or not, after the cognitive stimulation, using baseline individual differences as features. We also performed a permutation feature importance analysis that suggested that all features contribute equally to the model's performance. In the long term, this results might allow us to design better training strategies for those players who are less likely to benefit from the current training protocols in order to maximize the stimulation for each child.
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.