wais-iii huge perceptual organization index improvement

[hypersenses]

i did the full wais-iii 12-13 months ago. i scored 111 on the POI, which i think is the best measure for gf (although not a pure measure, but more comprehensive than just matrices)

This where the scores within the POI:
Picture completion 11
Block Design 10
Matrix Reasoning 15

I trained 2.5 months from february to april 2012. Note that i am 21 years old (intelligence is in some degree malleable till 22/23 years old, right?)

Well, i did the wais-iii again and have the results since a week. 
My POI is now 125 and this is how it looks:

Picture completion 8 (-3)
Block Design 18 (+8)
Matrix reasoning 16 (+1)

PS index didn't change for me.
In the verbal scale this changed:
Vocabulary from 11 to 12
Similarities from 11 to 14
Digit Span from 11 to 13

The improvement on the VIQ was 6 points.

I am pretty excited because i improved so much in Block Design and POI. 

[Pontus Granström]

I think your results are pretty much in line with previous research (1 SD improvement). No major surprises really. That perceptual organisation improves with n-backing is not hard to believe, and most likely the reason it improves
RAPM scores as well, since the test demands much of this.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/-/XRPVmAad0dwJ.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.

[hypersenses]

That's true according to several RAPM clones i did on the internet. They gave the same scores. Although this proves that the effects can generalize to a multi subtest battery of gf, which was not found in earlier research of n back tasks.  

Furthermore isn't it interesting the gain in gf didn't diminishes, still after 6-7 months of training? Could an explanation be for that fact that DnB could have an permanent effect on gf, at least for some people? Maybe for people who's brain are still in development?

[Mercel]

An increase from 10 to 18 in the block design score is odd to put it
mildly.

(To put things into perspective, if you improved picture completion
and matrix reasoning as much as you did with block design, or if your
IQ was to be judged on the block design solely, you would have an IQ
of roughly 180 in that subcategory: 11+10+15 = 36 -> 111/36 = 3.083 ->
11+8+18+15+8 = 60 - > 60*3.083 = 184.98. .)

[Pontus Granström]

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SBFl1BuLaUwJ:lib.zstu.edu.cn/res_base/lib_com_www/upload/article/file/2010_3/7_13/0b0hgbjirhbo.PDF+&hl=en&gl=se&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgo0SVnm3yA_0wE3dtwJJBlx6xfCf0TxxtL-evCGgFDcprXFU1dLP5XdRFJelTOCXWOgA-llB2AK4siLyGX02z1GKDns963uSXpFaP_FDsca8L_5XpVQ6hbYnUXgL3-RbAAfoX6&sig=AHIEtbQI76h_FMf1lZKEk0864DryYUJj2A

Here's the answer, WMC and Block design overlap.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

[Mercel]

Then this might be a promising area for future research.

[hypersenses]

Thank you for the interesting research btw. But that Block design depends on WM capacity didn't surprise me at all! Furthermore the Block Design is heavily timed on the wais-iii btw, more than on the latest revision of weschlers test. I solved every puzzle very quickly, due to i could effectively decode the pattern in pieces and hold multiple pieces in my mind, while solving it. 
Note that i did this time every question right on Matrix Reasoning, which i think only the last problem represents a real challenge. So it's in fact 15+1=16, but i have the feeling i'm just as improved on matrix reasoning as on block design. But no way i have a 180 IQ in the perceptual organization section.

[Pontus Granström]

Most thinking depends on working memory capacity. I've accepted this fact long time ago. Many IQ-tests are really nothing more than WMC with some twist. RAPM is a good example of this. Block design for sure. 

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:52 PM, hypersenses <t.vanbre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you for the interesting research btw. But that Block design depends on WM capacity didn't surprise me at all! Furthermore the Block Design is heavily timed on the wais-iii btw, more than on the latest revision of weschlers test. I solved every puzzle very quickly, due to i could effectively decode the pattern in pieces and hold multiple pieces in my mind, while solving it. 
Note that i did this time every question right on Matrix Reasoning, which i think only the last problem represents a real challenge. So it's in fact 15+1=16, but i have the feeling i'm just as improved on matrix reasoning as on block design. But no way i have a 180 IQ in the perceptual organization section.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/-/JZZt6VhQlawJ.

[☉]

It is not uncommon for someone of your age to experience an overall
gain in I.Q. since one's scores vary in the upward direction – P.I.Q.
tends to level out at 25-30 years or so, while V.I.Q. can continue to
develop into one's 40's.

In other words, I would not attribute your gains entirely or even
significantly to any kind of training unrelated (!) to the tasks on
which you were tested. Insofar as the tasks are somewhat related, it
would not be surprising to see some near-transfer. E.g., if someone
trains on doing arithmetic, one will do better at arithmetical
problems. Furthermore, the fact that you've taken the test before
means that all future results are tainted by practice effects.

Etc.

argumzio

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:42 PM, ☉ <argu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Furthermore, the fact that you've taken the test before
> means that all future results are tainted by practice effects.

hypersenses previously reported some IQ test results:
https://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/43ca7f18d595304

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Pontus Granström]

Brain scans show overlap between digit span (n-back type of task) and block design. If you get better (for real) on ds-tasks you probably pop up a few points in block design.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

[hypersenses]

Well, i also did Cogmed in June and the start of July and my backward digit span (exercise in game) increased from around 6,3 or 6,45 to 8,9.

The increase is around 38%. Which is around the increase i noticed in Block Design. 

[Payman Saghafi]

King of Stars:

What do you think about the research showing that while there is a noticeable correlation between working memory and IQ, the correlation is inconsistent?

Moreover, what do you think of the fact that there are a number of people with high IQs who have below average working memories?

Pay

[Pontus Granström]

There will be exceptions of course, but the link between IQ and WM is usually strong or extremely strong. Just like with most things it usually applies for 99% but not for that 1%. To me, the cases

that show dramatic improvement, are a bit too many just to regard it as practice effects Block Design

has a very high g-load and improves a lot from n-backing, just more proof of WMC-g.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/-/TX1EmsVC6OMJ.

[Michael]

Are you a cult leader, Pontus?

*Proof*

:)

Michael

[Pontus Granström]

Well more anecdotal evidence at least. What are the principles of training? You push yourself a little

more or longer to force adaptation within your genome. You stay focused longer and harder than you used to,like doing WMC-intervals and you get an adaption. Better more efficient brain cells because

the body/brain adapts to tasks it trains for. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/-/52lUDTetm9EJ.

[hypersenses]

There are always people who profit more from training than other people do. It is a fact that people who are deficient in a particular area profit more when they do a training than people who aren't. Deficient in Block Design doesn't have to mean a lower than average score, but can also go along with relatively weak WM skills. So maybe training DnB is not the way (as people see it) to enhance your IQ beyond your genetic markers, but to push your genome to it's highest levels of functioning (i agree with king of the stars)

However nobody is right, because there isn't clear evidence that training DnB leads to improved numerous skills. It can well be for a part a practise effect and an near transfer effect, because n-backing mimics a strong spatial component.

This is what i really think: My ability of performing Block Design didn't change, but i had several difficulties as a result of WM to perform the task very effectively. Cognitive ability is in your genes, but performance clearly isn't.

[Brandon Woodson]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3269637/

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001915/

Relevant? Don't these symptoms seem similar to those often associated with another familiar disorder? 

Isn't it interesting there is a study which finds a link between high I.Q. and *both* low and high anxiety levels groups? And how about the comorbidity of anxiety disorders in the ADHD population being about 50 percent per the Anxiety Disorders Association of America? And this doesn't speak for other disorders with trait low working memory symptoms like dyslexia, the population of which also having above average mean I.Q., but low WM performance. Let's not forget that Dr. Synder was able to produce "savant" abilities in normal subjects by inhibiting the left temporal lobe, an area responsible for language (auditory) processing.

I found this link to be particularly helpful, too:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034244

-Brandon

[whoisbambam]

'king of the stars' is pontus?

in the old days i could click on a nick and see more info.........

nowadays it only folds or expands the message.

there does not seem a way to get info like the old days anymore with this new forum

[☉]

Yes, the new Google Groups format is ridiculous, cumbersome, and
needlessly obfuscating.

argumzio

On Oct 10, 1:39 am, whoisbambam <smath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 'king of the stars' is pontus?
>
> in the old days i could click on a nick and see more info.........
>
> nowadays it only folds or expands the message.
>
> there does not seem a way to get info like the old days anymore with this
> new forum
>
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 2:22:33 AM UTC-5, King Of The Stars wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Well more anecdotal evidence at least. What are the principles of
> > training? You push yourself a little
> > more or longer to force adaptation within your genome. You stay focused
> > longer and harder than you used to,like doing WMC-intervals and you get an
> > adaption. Better more efficient brain cells because
> > the body/brain adapts to tasks it trains for.
>

> >> To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> >> .

> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >> brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.

[jttoto2]

The only thing I gather from your first two links is that those with GAD who have higher IQ have worse symptoms.  It doesn't say that high anxiety is linked to higher IQ (in fact, from your same link, in normal people the opposite is true)  While it may seem counterintuitive, when you actually sit down to think about it, it would seem to make sense that more intelligent people with mental health issues would find their symptoms more distressing.   

[Brandon Woodson]

I did not write that higher anxiety meant higher I.Q. in both groups, only that there is a trend going both ways, between higher I.Q. toward higher and lower anxiety *groups*.

Yes, given this study in isolation, I would not believe the link implied causality either way. 

In other words, I am seeing two different conjecture proposed here, either: a.) the disorder, or its underlying causes, are intrinsic to and responsible for the high I.Q., directly, in individuals with anxiety disorders, or at least implies an underlying brain physiology which responsible for both the high I.Q. and the disorder, each simply products of the physiology; or b.) this recurring *set* of symptoms and high I.Q. are of independent causes, with the high I.Q. in some way exacerbating the symptoms presented by the disorder, e.g., being more sensitive to the fact that one is anxious, that is, having a more sensitive temperament.

While the preponderance of evidence suggests the former - an example of this being that Harvard researcher Jerome Kagan, Ph.D., found that babies who were later in life socially anxious displayed unusual physiology, which included higher elevation in fetal heart rate in response to loud noises while in utero, higher right brain activation, lower novelty threshold, suggesting oversensitivity to stimuli, etc. even as infants (If it weren't in favor of this point, why wouldn't all high I.Q. children display the same adverse reaction given the ubiquitousness of this sensitivity across both groups as I.Q. increases) - it is useless to discuss this in a chicken-and-the-egg manner since, either way, anxiety should not increase with I.Q. (with either group) if we're to believe that anxiety should have a completely detrimental effect on WM and I.Q. 

Furthermore, social anxiety (like most fear responses) has been shown to have origins in the amygdala, which is inhibited by the executive function systems (responsible for WM), which can be strengthen by meditation. This is why meditation is shown to be an effective measure against anxiety. But if a high I.Q. person has much WMC to boot, and WM is one of the largest components of I.Q., and a high WMC is necessary for high I.Q., why isn't this fear response already inhibited? And isn't the ability to curb impulsivity supposed to increase along with WMC as well? 

But how about at least two groups - one with high verbal WMC, resulting from a strong and dominant executive control system, thus having better inhibition of the fear/anxiety response and better control of attentional processes, and another, a high visual WMC group with relatively little inhibition of the fear/anxiety response and much less ability to direct attention, having an amygdala-based system, unusually emphasizing novelty and stimulation, the basis for ADHD and other common high I.Q. disorders? Would this not reconcile the apparent discrepancies as opposed to recognizing they exist, then sweeping them under the rug? It would also tie together the loose ends between certain disorders and their comorbidities.

While more simplistic than is probably actual, this theory is nicely supported by the last link I posted (in that it supports a large visual WMC individual with "difficulty ignoring distractions and lowered visual and verbal WMC due to state anxiety) and provides direction for answer to questions concerning divergent thinking (and why some high I.Q. individuals have little creativity) - and why there are some minds which seem to "have it all" (If a mind possessed unusually high amygdala activation and a strong verbal WM system which could "handle" it, for example) and others specialize, having unusual (and often uneven) intellectual profiles with learning disabilities.

-Brandon

[jttoto2]

I think there is some miscommunicating going on, so I'll write as concise as possible.  

-  As I said, the trend is not going both ways, the trend is that people with higher IQ tend to have lower anxiety.  An exception is in those diagnosed with GAD, which represent a small portion of the general population.  So I agree with this:  "with the high I.Q. in some way exacerbating the symptoms presented by the disorder, e.g., being more sensitive to the fact that one is anxious, that is, having a more sensitive temperament."

Also, I think we can all agree that everyone with GAD has high trait anxiety.  There is no low anxiety person with GAD.  Thus, even if you were to use this highly niche group of individuals with GAD and paint it across the general population (and you can't since the data only applies to this specific subgroup), high anxiety still is found across the entire IQ range.

-  Lower childhood IQ in fact puts people at greater risk for GAD.  GAD can run the gamut of intellect, and having having a higher IQ can exacerbate the symptoms. but the curve is to the left of the general population.  At least that is my inference of the data presented thus far.   http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081201081729.htm

-  I agree that some high IQ individuals possess little creativity (anyone worked with a quality control engineer?  ugh), but that is not the point I was discussing.  And since we are going to bring up your third link on social anxiety, which only has an abstract, the authors specifically say that after controlling for possible confounders, there was no spatial WM advantage for those with social anxiety.  

-  "Would this not reconcile the apparent discrepancies as opposed to recognizing they exist, then sweeping them under the rug?"  Of course there are outliers, and I wish there was more research on them.  I in fact posted a link where those with Asperger's have lower WM yet higher reasoning ability.  We shouldn't automatically assume this is due to some evolutionary advantage however (ideally, you want both), and it could just as likely be that higher reasoning is keeping them from regressing into full-blown autism.  

[jttoto2]

Nevermind, when I originally clicked on the link it didn't load the entire page.  It does seem that higher spatial WM could exist in trait social anxiety (on ideal circumstances I might add), but more research is needed to find the actual mechanism behind it.  If a higher score on these tests is simply due to not being able to filter out anything, then I would question the applicability of these results.  It would be interesting to see how these people do on a fluid reasoning test, so see if there are any real world advantages.  

[Brandon Woodson]

I agree with whomever that thought this new layout was "cumbersome" - it is surely so. It makes keeping track of points from previous posts more difficult than before, and it deleted my post while I was typing it!

And I apologize for my last post. Sometimes, I get in a rush and bored, so I don't proofread and leave some passages wanting for clarity.

I will attempt to clarify my first paragraph (if you want to call it that). A person with GAD or any other anxiety disorder is diagnosed so because of s/he is exhibiting a set of symptoms found in the medical criteria for that disorder. GAD doesn't have an extensive criteria and is little more than persistent, excessive worry given a particular situation or event. SAD is the same, except the anxiety stems from social situations (or thoughts pertaining to social situations), especially those involving strangers. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed., Text Revision) does list as a requirement, however, that the *symptoms* (anxiety) are not cause by another mental disorder. So when I wrote the trend is going both ways (between high I.Q. and the lower anxiety group and high I.Q. and higher anxiety group, with both higher I.Q. being the trend to both extremes), I did so because of GAD is little more than persistent inappropriate and excessive worry, which means you have a group of otherwise normal people with excessive worry, and the two groups presumably don't differ in any important way other than their habitual (trait) anxiety levels. 

SO you have a group of excessively worried (GAD, high I.Q. population), slightly worried (normal and GAD, low I.Q. population), and hardly worried (typical high I.Q. population) individuals, and the only factor which differentiates the groups is levels of habit (trait) anxiety. Application of a GAD label after this distinction has already been made is tautologous, and hardly relevant since, in this context, unless we assume that *official* diagnosis is (at least in part) responsible for the controverting data, further distinction seems to be misnomer, which distracts from accurate interpretation of the data.

Lo and behold - clarity! (A comforting friend.)

At this point, we are still left with the paradoxical issue of two distinct trends for the same trait - unless, that is, we admit there is some other variable affecting the data (like two separate groups :]).

In the link you provided (I did not read the attached study), it states that the study found that participants had "two or more" psychiatric disorders. I believe this might confound the data, making it much less reliable than a pure GAD-to-I.Q. study. Also, time is a considerable factor since these were childhood scores (I'm sure we can both point out the myriad of problems this fact alone might bring.) and the study is based on finding from the participants in adulthood. It is even possible that their low I.Q. caused them to make poor lifestyle decisions (like heavy drug use), which triggered their disorders, among a whole host of other possible explanations. This is besides the point, though - the point is that between the two studies, the first more clearly addresses the issue of current WMC (and possibly I.Q.) in persons with anxiety disorders and is probably more reliable for purposes of this discussion.

The study makes a distinction (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.) between "trait" and "state" anxiety. Trait anxiety being (of course) the more permanent trait and an integral part of the individual's personality; and state anxiety depending mostly on temporary conditions. 

The study found that only under high state anxiety conditions did the trait high anxiety group perform as poorly (or well :]) as the normal population, low WM group, but under normal conditions, trait high anxiety individuals had higher visual WMC. I don't see this as a major sticking point since both groups perform more poorly under higher state anxiety conditions, and naturally, if it is true that higher WM capacity would imbue more protection against higher state stress, both lower trait anxiety in some individuals (normal, high I.Q.) and higher trait anxiety in others (SAD, high I.Q.) should be similar in how they perform under stressful and ideal conditions given their an increasingly (negative or positive) extreme position on the trait anxiety scale and its corresponding higher WMC benefits. In other words, low stress situation, both high I.Q. groups do well; high stress situation, both do more poorly with respect for stress severity and initial WMC capacity.

As far the physiological aspect goes - so far, evidence implicates an overactive limbic system, but I agree more information is needed to pinpoint an exact mechanism. In fact, I am not even so sure that I can even support the notion that it is the brain which *fully* determines the mind, and not the mind which partly determines the brain, especially since we don't fully understand the mind yet. But that is more a philosophical ramble, and I will admit, not unlike my previous musings on creativity, more of a passing thought than relevant. :)

Also, some individuals do well on normal I.Q. tests, some don't and do better on untimed, culture-fair tests.  My guess is that hyperconcentration (probably based on salience-based systems) may be key here, which might indicate that, as to a probable lesser degree in the normal population, motivation is a big factor when it comes to real world application.

-Brandon

[Pontus Granström]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20537050

Working memory and executive function profiles of individuals with borderline intellectual functioning.
Alloway TP.
Source

Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK. t.p.a...@stir.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND:

The aim of the present study was to investigate the following issues: (1) Do students with borderline intellectual functioning have a pervasive pattern of impaired working memory skills across both verbal and visuo-spatial domains? (2) Is there evidence for impairment in executive function skills, and which tasks indicate greater deficits? and (3) Which executive function tasks can effectively identify students with low IQ from typically developing peers?
METHOD:

Students with borderline intellectual functioning (low-IQ; IQ standard scores were between 70 and 85) were age-matched with typically developing students (IQ standard scores >95). They were administered a range of working memory and executive function measures.
RESULTS:

The results show that students with low IQ have pervasive working memory and executive function deficits. Specifically, visuo-spatial working memory and the Sorting task were the best single predictors that reliably classified students with low IQ.
CONCLUSIONS:

Implications for education are discussed in the context of appropriate diagnosis and support in the classroom.

-Brandon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/-/HCgh86245soJ.

[Brandon Woodson]

Do you believe the above study ties into the established discussion? If so, how?

-Brandon

[Pontus Granström]

It was a response to Payman Saghafi that asked what I thought about people having a high IQ

while having WM-deficits. This is clearly not common, working memory in general and visual working memory in particular is the best predictor of cognitive impairments. The article also mentions the importance of working memory and executive functions. 

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Brandon Woodson <bmwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you believe the above study ties into the established discussion? If so, how?

-Brandon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/-/TqgGoHsuTe4J.

[Pontus Granström]

WM correctly classifies people in 97% of the cases.

[Brandon Woodson]

I was merely being curious. I love hearing opinions and find them fascinating for many reasons.

Notwithstanding atypical WM development (relative deficits in either verbal or visual WM), what are your opinions on this remaining ~3%?

[Pontus Granström]

Hard to say, but most likely some people who do not take the test serious. 

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Brandon Woodson <bmwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

I was merely being curious. I love hearing opinions and find them fascinating for many reasons.

Notwithstanding atypical WM development (relative deficits in either verbal or visual WM), what are your opinions on this remaining ~3%?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/-/0Og4CBdcr1MJ.

[Mercel]

People with low IQ, normally have poor working memories as well, and
the nature of causality in this regard seem to go from the latter to
the former. A solid working memory presupposes a high IQ. But it has
been established that people can have superior working memories, while
at the same time have significantly lower IQ (yet not low). What the
prodigy study showed was that this relationship is not equally
reciprocal.