↓ Skip to main content

Computerized training of non-verbal reasoning and working memory in children with intellectual disability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
271 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Computerized training of non-verbal reasoning and working memory in children with intellectual disability
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00271
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stina Söderqvist, Sissela B. Nutley, Jon Ottersen, Katja M. Grill, Torkel Klingberg

Abstract

Children with intellectual disabilities show deficits in both reasoning ability and working memory (WM) that impact everyday functioning and academic achievement. In this study we investigated the feasibility of cognitive training for improving WM and non-verbal reasoning (NVR) ability in children with intellectual disability. Participants were randomized to a 5-week adaptive training program (intervention group) or non-adaptive version of the program (active control group). Cognitive assessments were conducted prior to and directly after training and 1 year later to examine effects of the training. Improvements during training varied largely and amount of progress during training predicted transfer to WM and comprehension of instructions, with higher training progress being associated with greater transfer improvements. The strongest predictors for training progress were found to be gender, co-morbidity, and baseline capacity on verbal WM. In particular, females without an additional diagnosis and with higher baseline performance showed greater progress. No significant effects of training were observed at the 1-year follow-up, suggesting that training should be more intense or repeated in order for effects to persist in children with intellectual disabilities. A major finding of this study is that cognitive training is feasible in this clinical sample and can help improve their cognitive performance. However, a minimum cognitive capacity or training ability seems necessary for the training to be beneficial, with some individuals showing little improvement in performance. Future studies of cognitive training should take into consideration how inter-individual differences in training progress influence transfer effects and further investigate how baseline capacities predict training outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 260 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 23%
Student > Master 37 14%
Researcher 35 13%
Student > Bachelor 28 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 9%
Other 42 15%
Unknown 44 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 125 46%
Neuroscience 22 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 6%
Social Sciences 16 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 4%
Other 28 10%
Unknown 52 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 October 2012.
All research outputs
#14,089,487
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,502
of 7,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,088
of 244,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#192
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 244,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.