Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37149680›Full record

ArticleNPJ science of learning2023

A dual-process model for cognitive training.

Julia Ericson, Torkel Klingberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ science of learning, 2023. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

2 authors.

Julia EricsonDepartment of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden. julia.ericson@ki.se.
Torkel KlingbergDepartment of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden. torkel.klingberg@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3175-2171

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A key goal in cognitive training research is understanding whether cognitive training enhances general cognitive capacity or provides only task-specific improvements. Here, we developed a quantitative model for describing the temporal dynamics of these two processes. We analyzed data from 1300 children enrolled in an 8 week working memory training program that included 5 transfer test sessions. Factor analyses suggested two separate processes: an early task-specific improvement, accounting for 44% of the total increase, and a slower capacity improvement. A hidden Markov model was then applied to individual training data, revealing that the task-specific improvement plateaued on the third day of training on average. Thus, training is not only task specific or transferable but a combination of the two. The models provide methods for quantifying and separating these processes, which is crucial for studying the effects of cognitive training and relating these effects to neural correlates.

Identifiers

PMID37149680
PMCPMC10164188

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.