Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35848224›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2023

Cognitive segmentation and fluid reasoning in childhood.

Sinéad O'Brien, Daniel J Mitchell, John Duncan, Joni Holmes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sinéad O'BrienMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1556-4047
Daniel J MitchellMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
John DuncanMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Joni HolmesMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105580448Medical Research Council MC_UU_00005/6Medical Research Council MC_UU_00030/7
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to solve novel complex problems predicts success in a wide range of areas. Recent research suggests that the ability to cognitively segment complex problems into smaller parts constrains nonverbal reasoning in adults. This study aimed to test whether cognitively segmenting problems improves nonverbal reasoning performance for children as it does for adults. A total of 115 children aged 6-10 years completed two versions of a modified traditional matrix reasoning task in which demands on working memory, integration, and processing speed were minimised, such that the only significant requirement was to break each problem into its constituent parts. In one version of the task, participants were presented with a traditional 2×2 Matrix and asked to draw the missing matrix item into a response box below. In a second version, the problem was broken down into its component features across three separate cells, reducing the need for participants to segment the problem. As with adults, performance was better in the condition in which the problems were separated into component parts. Children with lower fluid intelligence did not benefit more in the separated condition than children with higher fluid intelligence, and there was no evidence that segmenting problems was more beneficial for younger than older children. This study demonstrates that cognitive segmentation is a critical component of complex problem-solving for children, as it is for adults. By forcing children to focus their attention on separate parts of a complex visual problem, their performance can be dramatically improved.

Indexed as

Memory, Short-TermProblem SolvingAdolescentAdultAttentionChildHumansIntelligenceProcessing Speedanalogical reasoningCognitive segmentationfluid intelligencematrix reasoningproblem-solving

Identifiers

PMID35848224
PMCPMC7614553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.