ArticleJournal of cognition2023
Unicorn, Hare, or Tortoise? Using Machine Learning to Predict Working Memory Training Performance.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning Approach for Predicting Older Adults' Responsiveness to Cognitive Training Interventions: Data from the ACTIVE Study.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- The impact of surgical simulation and training technologies on general surgery education.BMC medical education · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People differ considerably in the extent to which they benefit from working memory (WM) training. Although there is increasing research focusing on individual differences associated with WM training outcomes, we still lack an understanding of which specific individual differences, and in what combination, contribute to inter-individual variations in training trajectories. In the current study, 568 undergraduates completed one of several N-back intervention variants over the course of two weeks. Participants' training trajectories were clustered into three distinct training patterns (high performers, intermediate performers, and low performers). We applied machine-learning algorithms to train a binary tree model to predict individuals' training patterns relying on several individual difference variables that have been identified as relevant in previous literature. These individual difference variables included pre-existing cognitive abilities, personality characteristics, motivational factors, video game experience, health status, bilingualism, and socioeconomic status. We found that our classification model showed good predictive power in distinguishing between high performers and relatively lower performers. Furthermore, we found that openness and pre-existing WM capacity to be the two most important factors in distinguishing between high and low performers. However, among low performers, openness and video game background were the most significant predictors of their learning persistence. In conclusion, it is possible to predict individual training performance using participant characteristics before training, which could inform the development of personalized interventions.
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.