AnalysisWe compared all groups before training, performing One-way ANOVAs for the variables “mean age”, “pre-training task performance” and “minutes played”, and a Chi-Square test for “gender”. The comparison between on-task learning was performed using Student t-tests. Two-way mixed ANOVA was used to compare pre and post-training performance as a function of group, with group (AG, MG, SG, PG, CG) as the independent variable and time of testing (pre-test and post-test) as the dependent variable (Group analysis). To ML240 dose identify the differences detected by ANOVA, Tukey’s multiple comparison tests were used. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.ResultsAll trained groups received approximately the same total duration of training (AG = 496 minutes, MG = 523 minutes, SG = 512 minutes, and PG = 519 minutes; 8? hours each). There was no significant difference between the groups (F (3,47) = 0.60, p = 0.617).Compliance MeasuresFig 1 shows on-task learning during the training phase for 3 of the 4 trained groups (SG, AG and MG), as a function of the (arbitrary game) level achieved and the number of blocks played. The placebo group did not receive quantitative evaluation. In general, individuals improved with training, and mean performance for each of the 3 trained groups significantly improved with training (all p < 0.001). Children in the Memory and Sensory groups showed converging, improved, performance across successive blocks. For the SG this was clearly due to ceiling performance among those completing more than 14 blocks of training. In contrast, the attention group showed more divergent performance across blocks. Some children improved rapidly, reaching a high performance asymptote in the first half of training, while others improved only very gradually, if at all, across the whole training period. A few children in both groups showed one or more `spurts' of improvement at various points during the first half of training. Different shadings highlighted that, in general, regardless of type of training, older children seemed to learn faster than younger children. Despite that, in all groups there were some wcs.1183 exceptions, demonstrating that even for the same age and the same task, development can occur at different speeds in different children. In the attention task, for Procyanidin B1 site instance, two 6 year olds learned rapidly while several of the others seemed to learn slowly. On the other hand, all 7 and 8-year old children improved fast. In the Memory task, one 6 year old seemed to learn rapidly while the two others seemed to learn more slowly, like some of the older children. In the sensory tasks, two 6 year old children were slower while the two others were similar to the older ones.Mid- and Far-Transfer MeasuresFig 2 shows the mean pre- and post-training performance of the 5 groups in terms of the midtransfer (auditory attention, memory j.jebo.2013.04.005 and speech intelligibility) outcome measures. For the auditory attention task (Fig 2A), there was no significant difference in the mean proportion of correct detections (p = 0.171) or false alarms (p = 0.958) between the pre- and posttraining tests. For the RT, the response time generally and significantly decreased (improved) with training (F(1,51) = 5.62, p = 0.022).PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0135422 August 12,8 /Generalization of Auditory and Cognitive Learning in ChildrenFig 1. On-task learning. Progression during the training for each child in each group as a function of the computer game `level’ achieved.AnalysisWe compared all groups before training, performing One-way ANOVAs for the variables “mean age”, “pre-training task performance” and “minutes played”, and a Chi-Square test for “gender”. The comparison between on-task learning was performed using Student t-tests. Two-way mixed ANOVA was used to compare pre and post-training performance as a function of group, with group (AG, MG, SG, PG, CG) as the independent variable and time of testing (pre-test and post-test) as the dependent variable (Group analysis). To identify the differences detected by ANOVA, Tukey’s multiple comparison tests were used. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.ResultsAll trained groups received approximately the same total duration of training (AG = 496 minutes, MG = 523 minutes, SG = 512 minutes, and PG = 519 minutes; 8? hours each). There was no significant difference between the groups (F (3,47) = 0.60, p = 0.617).Compliance MeasuresFig 1 shows on-task learning during the training phase for 3 of the 4 trained groups (SG, AG and MG), as a function of the (arbitrary game) level achieved and the number of blocks played. The placebo group did not receive quantitative evaluation. In general, individuals improved with training, and mean performance for each of the 3 trained groups significantly improved with training (all p < 0.001). Children in the Memory and Sensory groups showed converging, improved, performance across successive blocks. For the SG this was clearly due to ceiling performance among those completing more than 14 blocks of training. In contrast, the attention group showed more divergent performance across blocks. Some children improved rapidly, reaching a high performance asymptote in the first half of training, while others improved only very gradually, if at all, across the whole training period. A few children in both groups showed one or more `spurts' of improvement at various points during the first half of training. Different shadings highlighted that, in general, regardless of type of training, older children seemed to learn faster than younger children. Despite that, in all groups there were some wcs.1183 exceptions, demonstrating that even for the same age and the same task, development can occur at different speeds in different children. In the attention task, for instance, two 6 year olds learned rapidly while several of the others seemed to learn slowly. On the other hand, all 7 and 8-year old children improved fast. In the Memory task, one 6 year old seemed to learn rapidly while the two others seemed to learn more slowly, like some of the older children. In the sensory tasks, two 6 year old children were slower while the two others were similar to the older ones.Mid- and Far-Transfer MeasuresFig 2 shows the mean pre- and post-training performance of the 5 groups in terms of the midtransfer (auditory attention, memory j.jebo.2013.04.005 and speech intelligibility) outcome measures. For the auditory attention task (Fig 2A), there was no significant difference in the mean proportion of correct detections (p = 0.171) or false alarms (p = 0.958) between the pre- and posttraining tests. For the RT, the response time generally and significantly decreased (improved) with training (F(1,51) = 5.62, p = 0.022).PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0135422 August 12,8 /Generalization of Auditory and Cognitive Learning in ChildrenFig 1. On-task learning. Progression during the training for each child in each group as a function of the computer game `level’ achieved.