↓ Skip to main content

The Relationship between Intelligence and Training Gains Is Moderated by Training Strategy

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The Relationship between Intelligence and Training Gains Is Moderated by Training Strategy
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0123259
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We examined the relationship between training regimen and fluid intelligence in the learning of a complex video game. Fifty non-game-playing young adults were trained on a game called Space Fortress for 30 hours with one of two training regimens: 1) Hybrid Variable-Priority Training (HVT), with part-task training and a focus on improving specific skills and managing task priorities, and 2) Full Emphasis Training (FET) in which participants practiced the whole game to obtain the highest overall score. Fluid intelligence was measured with the Raven's Progressive Matrix task before training. With FET, fluid intelligence was positively associated with learning, suggesting that intellectual ability played a substantial role in determining individual differences in training success. In contrast, with HVT, fluid intelligence was not associated with learning, suggesting that individual differences in fluid intelligence do not factor into training success in a regimen that emphasizes component tasks and flexible task coordination. By analyzing training effects in terms of individual differences and training regimens, the current study offers a training approach that minimizes the potentially limiting effect of individual differences.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 64 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 37%
Computer Science 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2025.
All research outputs
#22,884,345
of 28,014,356 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#203,634
of 243,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,837
of 282,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#5,003
of 6,574 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,014,356 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 243,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,574 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.