↓ Skip to main content

Spaced cognitive training promotes training transfer

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 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.
Title
Spaced cognitive training promotes training transfer
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00217
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zuowei Wang, Renlai Zhou, Priti Shah

Abstract

Cognitive training studies yield wildly inconsistent results. One dimension on which studies vary is the scheduling of training sessions (Morrison and Chein, 2011). In this study, we systematically address whether or not spacing of practice influences training and transfer. We randomly assigned 115 fifth grade children to an active control group or one of four training groups who received working memory training based on a "running span" task (Zhao et al., 2011). All groups received the same total amount of training: 20 sessions of training with 60 trials for an average of 20 min per session. The training was spread across 2, 5, 10, or 20 days. The active control group received 20-min sessions of math instruction for 20 sessions. Before and after training participants in all five groups performed a single transfer test that assessed fluid intelligence, the Raven's Progressive Matrices Test. Overall, participants in all four training groups improved significantly on the training task (at least partially), as reflected by increased speed. More importantly, the only training group to show significant improvement on the Raven's was the group who had the greatest amount of spacing (20 days group) during training and improvement in this group was significantly higher than that of the control group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 3 2%
United States 3 2%
Poland 2 1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 150 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 27%
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 18 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 71 44%
Social Sciences 19 12%
Neuroscience 12 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 26 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 02 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,423,498
of 25,083,571 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,136
of 7,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,908
of 234,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#47
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,083,571 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
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 234,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.