Change by challenge: A common genetic basis behind childhood cognitive development and cognitive training

Remote neurocognitive interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder - Opportunities and challenges

Improving neurocognitive functions through remote interventions has been a promising approach to developing new treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD). Remote neurocognitive interventions may address the shortcomings of the current prevailing pharmacological therapies for AD/HD, e.g., side effects and access barriers. Here we review the current options for remote neurocognitive interventions to reduce AD/HD symptoms, including cognitive training, EEG neurofeedback training, transcranial electrical stimulation, and external cranial nerve stimulation. We begin with an overview of the neurocognitive deficits in AD/HD to identify the targets for developing interventions. The role of neuroplasticity in each intervention is then highlighted due to its essential role in facilitating neuropsychological adaptations. Following this, each intervention type is discussed in terms of the critical details of the intervention protocols, the role of neuroplasticity, and the available evidence. Finally, we offer suggestions for future directions in terms of optimizing the existing intervention protocols and developing novel protocols.

Schooling substantially improves intelligence, but neither lessens nor widens the impacts of socioeconomics and genetics

Schooling, socioeconomic status (SES), and genetics all impact intelligence. However, it is unclear to what extent their contributions are unique and if they interact. Here we used a multi-trait polygenic score for cognition (cogPGS) with a quasi-experimental regression discontinuity design to isolate how months of schooling relate to intelligence in 6567 children (aged 9-11). We found large, independent effects of schooling (β ~ 0.15), cogPGS (β ~ 0.10), and SES (β ~ 0.20) on working memory, crystallized (cIQ), and fluid intelligence (fIQ). Notably, two years of schooling had a larger effect on intelligence than the lifetime consequences, since birth, of SES or cogPGS-based inequalities. However, schooling showed no interaction with cogPGS or SES for the three intelligence domains tested. While schooling had strong main effects on intelligence, it did not lessen, nor widen the impact of these preexisting SES or genetic factors.

The impact of digital media on children's intelligence while controlling for genetic differences in cognition and socioeconomic background

Digital media defines modern childhood, but its cognitive effects are unclear and hotly debated. We believe that studies with genetic data could clarify causal claims and correct for the typically unaccounted role of genetic predispositions. Here, we estimated the impact of different types of screen time (watching, socializing, or gaming) on children’s intelligence while controlling for the confounding effects of genetic differences in cognition and socioeconomic status. We analyzed 9855 children from the USA who were part of the ABCD dataset with measures of intelligence at baseline (ages 9–10) and after two years. At baseline, time watching (r = − 0.12) and socializing (r = − 0.10) were negatively correlated with intelligence, while gaming did not correlate. After two years, gaming positively impacted intelligence (standardized β =  + 0.17), but socializing had no effect. This is consistent with cognitive benefits documented in experimental studies on video gaming. Unexpectedly, watching videos also benefited intelligence (standardized β =  + 0.12), contrary to prior research on the effect of watching TV. Although, in a posthoc analysis, this was not significant if parental education (instead of SES) was controlled for. Broadly, our results are in line with research on the malleability of cognitive abilities from environmental factors, such as cognitive training and the Flynn effect.