D4B is all I can do with reasonable accuracy, n=3 for QNB. I recall
reading a post from Ashirgo awhile back that he reached Q6B and I
believe it was D12B.
On 28 oct, 16:18, (¯`·._.·[ (GUZ) ]·._.·´¯) <guz.gui...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:16 am, Reece <rockyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ashirgo awhile back that he reached Q6B and I
> believe it was D12B.
Well, it is still me, with a slightly improved result (D13B). And I do
not train QNB at all, in fact I've never trained. I had a significant
break (due to several reasons, my procrastination as the main one); my
performance is not affected in any way, it usually takes one week to
restore one's full capacity from before the break. I still wonder if I
can get higher, but I am too afraid to try (and hence I keep training
with extremely low intervals, which is a bit different pair of shoes).
On Oct 29, 1:16 am, Reece <rockyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> D4B is all I can do with reasonable accuracy, n=3 for QNB. I recall
> reading a post from Ashirgo awhile back that he reached Q6B and I
> believe it was D12B.
> > By the way, I've reached to 12-back with an average of 8.15 today,
> > that's my top score at this time.
For record's sake, I indicated in the group some time ago that I
reached Q6B with a 72% accuracy rating with the Chance of a Guaranteed
Match set to 0.2
I have since quit training to see what results from a period of
abeyance. So far, I haven't noticed any lack of the mental sharpness
and precision, but that may be due to my real intellectual pursuits...
On Oct 29, 1:43 pm, cev <ubiquity...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> I regularly do T9B over at cogfun. 9x3 = 27 defeats 13x2, 6x4; I am
> the champion of the cosmos. ;-P
That's funny because I seriously think the cognitive demands are
greater the more particular items one has to remember (dual<tri<quad),
even if the Xn result is equivalent in some mathematical regard (e.g.,
where Q6 = T8 = D12). Executive processes, tackling with more
simultaneous responses and inhibitions, will be exercised that much
more, even in a bimodal framework.
But this is all pleasantly hypothetical. At some point we would have
to get some published results on the relationship between these.
Oh, and cev, what is your average percentage on T9B? I won't let you
get by with that Champion of the Cosmos quip so easily. ;-)
> That's funny because I seriously think the cognitive demands are
> greater the more particular items one has to remember (dual<tri<quad),
> even if the Xn result is equivalent in some mathematical regard (e.g.,
> where Q6 = T8 = D12). Executive processes, tackling with more
> simultaneous responses and inhibitions, will be exercised that much
> more, even in a bimodal framework.
> But this is all pleasantly hypothetical. At some point we would have
> to get some published results on the relationship between these.
> Oh, and cev, what is your average percentage on T9B? I won't let you
> get by with that Champion of the Cosmos quip so easily. ;-)
Strangely enough, I find T9B only a tiny bit more difficult than D9B -
my %s tend to be about 60%-70% on both (so maybe you're the Champion
of the Cosmos after all). I haven't tried quad backing yet.
"I regularly do T9B over at cogfun. 9x3 = 27 defeats 13x2, 6x4; I am
the champion of the cosmos."
9 back over there is tough, chunking into 5/4 or 4/5 or 3/3/3. Wow. A
few days ago I reached 9 back at cogfun having a good run at 8 but
just now got thrown back a level. So you will once again be lonely at
the top, notwithstanding the possible apearance of Medical Student or
a mystery guest. And of course I will return!
I do think it's good to push one's limits a fall down rather than
score very high percentage at a lower levels. I noticed that some
people over there are acing 4 or 5 back but don't move up to higher N
levels perhaps out of fear of ruining their high percentage. To me,
that makes no sense...if one can go to higher levels, one should go
ahead and slam their dorsolateral prefrontal cortex against it...but
then, one shouldn't set the bar too low to move up a level. It should
be deserved.
As for the dual/triple, I find triple much harder than dual and am
starting to feel more of a more positive effect from playing triple
back. I've reached triple at 6 back at around 60% and find this level
very challenging at the present time.
It would be interesting to hear how long people have been training
for, too.
Max I have reached so far is dual-10-back, highest average score of
about ~8.1 about three times so far (but my usual average is ~7.4),
all at 10 quarter-seconds per trial. I've been playing DNB in Jaeggi
mode for about 10 months now.
On Oct 28, 5:18 pm, (¯`·._.·[ (GUZ) ]·._.·´¯) <guz.gui...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks for sharing. This is probably good to know for someone just
starting out, so they don't create unrealistic expectations for
themselves and give up on training just because they haven't reached
D15B after a week.
I also realized that 10 months is a rather vague indicator of actual
time invested, so to expound on it a bit further, my 10 month training
has been made up of the 20 sessions a day described in the original
study (amounting to about 30 minutes a day). I train 5 days a week.
On Oct 31, 8:38 am, milestones <wgweathe...@gmail.com> wrote:
