Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36195645›Full record

ArticleNPJ science of learning2022

Comparing models of learning and relearning in large-scale cognitive training data sets.

Aakriti Kumar, Aaron S Benjamin, Andrew Heathcote, Mark Steyvers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ science of learning, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Aakriti KumarUniversity of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Aaron S BenjaminUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA.
Andrew HeathcoteUniversity of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Mark SteyversUniversity of California, Irvine, CA, USA. mark.steyvers@uci.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1466-5647

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Practice in real-world settings exhibits many idiosyncracies of scheduling and duration that can only be roughly approximated by laboratory research. Here we investigate 39,157 individuals' performance on two cognitive games on the Lumosity platform over a span of 5 years. The large-scale nature of the data allows us to observe highly varied lengths of uncontrolled interruptions to practice and offers a unique view of learning in naturalistic settings. We enlist a suite of models that grow in the complexity of the mechanisms they postulate and conclude that long-term naturalistic learning is best described with a combination of long-term skill and task-set preparedness. We focus additionally on the nature and speed of relearning after breaks in practice and conclude that those components must operate interactively to produce the rapid relearning that is evident even at exceptionally long delays (over 2 years). Naturalistic learning over long time spans provides a strong test for the robustness of theoretical accounts of learning, and should be more broadly used in the learning sciences.

Identifiers

PMID36195645
PMCPMC9532425

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.