Claims

Simulation study shows the HMM recovers the true transition day within one day in 88% of cases

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2026: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? In simulations with known true parameters, the model predicted the transition day within one day in 88% of cases and within two days in 94% of cases. → Julia Ericson and Torkel Klingberg 2023

Evidence

Julia Ericson and Torkel Klingberg 2023

Julia Ericson and Torkel Klingberg. (2023). A dual-process model for cognitive training. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00161-2

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Simulation of 1000 simulated subjects with parameters sampled from uniform distributions and Gaussian noise matched to the real data's noise level. The article reports "In 88% of the cases, the model predicted the transition day within one day".

"In 88% of the cases, the model predicted the transition day within one day of the true transition day. In 94% of cases the transitions were predicted within two days of the true transition day."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-26
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.