Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37636011›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognition2023

EXAMINING MECHANISMS OF CHILDHOOD COGNITIVE CONTROL.

Keertana Ganesan, Claire R Smid, Abigail Thompson, Elisa S Buchberger, Joshua Spowage, Somya Iqbal, Harriet Phillips, Nikolaus Steinbeis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cognition, 2023. 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. Trial
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

8 authors.

Keertana GanesanDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, UCL, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5631-2028
Claire R SmidDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, UCL, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0013-8814
Abigail ThompsonDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, UCL, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7124-9968
Elisa S BuchbergerMax-Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5377-9722
Joshua SpowageDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, UCL, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
Somya IqbalDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, UCL, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3668-438X
Harriet PhillipsDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, UCL, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
Nikolaus SteinbeisDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, UCL, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8650-4725

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Childhood cognitive control is an important predictor for positive development, yet interventions seeking to improve it have provided mixed results. This is partly due to lack of clarity surrounding mechanisms of cognitive control, notably the role of inhibition and context monitoring. Here we use a randomized controlled trial to causally test the contributions of inhibition and context monitoring to cognitive control in childhood. Sixty children aged 6 to 9-years were assigned to three groups training either inhibition, context monitoring group or response speed using a gamified, highly variable and maximally adaptive training protocol. Whereas all children improved in the targeted cognitive functions over the course of training, pre-post data show that only the inhibition group improved on cognitive control. These findings serve as a first step in demonstrating the promise inhibition-based cognitive control interventions may hold.

Indexed as

Cognitive controlCognitive control trainingExecutive functions

Identifiers

PMID37636011
PMCPMC10453963

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.