ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparing the Efficacy of Two School-Based Approaches of Neurocognitive Training for Enhancing Executive Functions.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neurocognitive academic training to improve symptoms executive functions and Chinese handwriting in children with ADHD.NPJ science of learning · 2026Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Neurocognitive training has been shown to improve a range of cognitive/executive functions and behavior in children. Delivering this training in a school context may enhance its ecological validity and improve training outcomes. The current study examined the efficacy of two school-based neurocognitive training approaches for enhancing executive functions (EF) in typically developing children: neurocognitive training with no teacher positive feedback (NCT), and neurocognitive training with teacher positive feedback (NCT-TPF). Using a randomized control design, 45 children were randomly allocated to the no-training control, NCT, or NCT-TPF group and completed pre- and post-training assessments on the core executive function (EF) domains of inhibitory control, working memory, and task switching. Teachers' subjective acceptance of the two training protocols was investigated to explore potential ecological validity. The two training groups completed six sessions of training in a kindergarten over a 3-week period. The results showed significant post-training improvements in an untrained inhibitory control task for both training groups when compared with the control group. Different effects were found for each group for the untrained task switching task. While reduced reaction time (RT) in correct Color and Shape trials at Time 2 were reported for the NCT-TPF group, there was no difference compared to the control group for the NCT group. The NCT group showed increased RT in Switch trials but reduced Shape errors compared to controls at Time 2, while these effects were not significant for the NCT-TPF group. An unexpected outcome was that children in both training conditions did not show a significant improvement in an untrained working memory task. Teachers' subjective acceptance consistently supported including positive feedback as part of NCT. While further research is needed, these results support use of neurocognitive training and/or neurocognitive training with teacher positive feedback for typically developing children in a school context.
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.