The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Practice effects in healthy adults: A longitudinal study on frequent repetitive cognitive testing
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive deterioration is a core symptom of many neuropsychiatric disorders and target of increasing significance for novel treatment strategies. Hence, its reliable capture in long-term follow-up studies is prerequisite for recording the natural course of diseases and for estimating potential benefits of therapeutic interventions. Since repeated neuropsychological testing is required for respective longitudinal study designs, occurrence, time pattern and magnitude of practice effects on cognition have to be understood first under healthy good-performance conditions to enable design optimization and result interpretation in disease trials. METHODS: Healthy adults (N = 36; 47.3 ± 12.0 years; mean IQ 127.0 ± 14.1; 58% males) completed 7 testing sessions, distributed asymmetrically from high to low frequency, over 1 year (baseline, weeks 2-3, 6, 9, months 3, 6, 12). The neuropsychological test battery covered 6 major cognitive domains by several well-established tests each. RESULTS: Most tests exhibited a similar pattern upon repetition: (1) Clinically relevant practice effects during high-frequency testing until month 3 (Cohen's d 0.36-1.19), most pronounced early on, and (2) a performance plateau thereafter upon low-frequency testing. Few tests were non-susceptible to practice or limited by ceiling effects. Influence of confounding variables (age, IQ, personality) was minor. CONCLUSIONS: Practice effects are prominent particularly in the early phase of high-frequency repetitive cognitive testing of healthy well-performing subjects. An optimal combination and timing of tests, as extractable from this study, will aid in controlling their impact. Moreover, normative data for serial testing may now be collected to assess normal learning curves as important comparative readout of pathological cognitive processes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hamilton, M. (1960) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56 · Cited by 32,817
The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia.
Kay, S. R., Fiszbein, A., & Opler, L. A. (1987) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/13.2.261 · Cited by 21,378
Validity of the Trail Making Test as an Indicator of Organic Brain Damage
Reitan, R. M. (1958) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.2466/pms.1958.8.3.271 · Cited by 7,928
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.59.1.12 · Cited by 7,770
The Neuropsychological Assessment
Ogden, J. A. (2005) · Fractured Minds · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195171358.003.0002 · Cited by 4,364
What are the functional consequences of neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia?
(1996) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.153.3.321 · Cited by 3,516
Zinkus, P. W. (1987) · Textbook of Developmental Pediatrics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1797-5_8 · Cited by 1,500
Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure
Cutter, G. R. (1999) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/122.5.871 · Cited by 1,190
A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t
Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.795 · Cited by 696
DIKMEN, S. S., HEATON, R. K., GRANT, I., & TEMKIN, N. R. (1999) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617799544056 · Cited by 473
Cited by
Calamia, M., Markon, K., & Tranel, D. (2012) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2012.680913 · Cited by 583
Goldberg, T. E., Harvey, P. D., Wesnes, K. A., Snyder, P. J., & Schneider, L. S. (2015) · Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring · doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2014.11.003 · Cited by 343
A primer on investigating the after effects of acute bouts of physical activity on cognition
Pontifex, M. B., McGowan, A. L., Chandler, M. C., Gwizdala, K. L., Parks, A. C., Fenn, K., & Kamijo, K. (2019) · Psychology of Sport and Exercise · doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.015 · Cited by 339
Kable, J. W., Caulfield, M. K., Falcone, M., McConnell, M., Bernardo, L., Parthasarathi, T., Cooper, N., Ashare, R., Audrain-McGovern, J., Hornik, R., et al. (2017) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2832-16.2017 · Cited by 124
Amphetamine modulates brain signal variability and working memory in younger and older adults
Garrett, D. D., Nagel, I. E., Preuschhof, C., Burzynska, A. Z., Marchner, J., Wiegert, S., Jungehülsing, G. J., Nyberg, L., Villringer, A., Li, S.-C., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1504090112 · Cited by 103
Metadata
- Authors
- Bartels, C., Wegrzyn, M., Wiedl, A., Ackermann, V., & Ehrenreich, H.
- Venue
- BMC Neuroscience
- Published
- 2010-09-16
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 118-118
- ISSN
- 1471-2202 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2045525571
- Cited by
- 444
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 13.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Practice effects in healthy adults: A longitudinal study on frequent repetitive cognitive testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2202-11-118
- The paper
- Bartels, C., Wegrzyn, M., Wiedl, A., Ackermann, V., & Ehrenreich, H. (2010). Practice effects in healthy adults: A longitudinal study on frequent repetitive cognitive testing. BMC Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-11-118
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.