ArticleDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience2024
Stimulus shapes strategy: Effects of stimulus characteristics and individual differences in academic achievement on the neural mechanisms engaged during the N-back task.
Article in Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The role of the hippocampus in working memory and word reading: Novel neural correlates of reading among youth living in the context of economic disadvantage.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This fMRI study of 126 youth explored whether the neural mechanisms underlying the N-back task, commonly used to examine executive control over the contents of working memory, are associated with individual differences in academic achievement in reading and math. Moreover, the study explored whether these relationships occur regardless of the nature of the stimulus being manipulated in working memory (letters, numbers, nonsense shapes) or whether these relationships are specific to achievement domain and stimulus type (i.e., letters for reading and numbers for math). The results indicated that higher academic achievement in each of reading and math was associated with greater activation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the N-back task regardless of stimulus type (i.e., did not differ for letters and numbers), suggesting that at least some aspects of the neural mechanisms underlying these academic domains are executive in nature. In addition, regardless of level of academic achievement, prefrontal regions were engaged to a greater degree for letters than numbers than nonsense shapes. In contrast, nonsense shapes yielded greater hippocampal activation than letters and numbers. Potential reasons for this pattern of findings are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.