Re: N-back versus Complex Span Working Memory Training

[Gwern Branwen]

Full citation: "N-back versus Complex Span Working Memory Training",
Blacker et al 2017:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805159/

> Working memory (WM) is the ability to maintain and manipulate task-relevant information in the absence of sensory input. While its improvement through training is of great interest, the degree to which WM training transfers to untrained WM tasks (near transfer) and other untrained cognitive skills (far transfer) remains debated and the mechanism(s) underlying transfer are unclear. Here we hypothesized that a critical feature of dual n-back training is its reliance on maintaining relational information in WM. In Experiment 1, using an individual differences approach, we found evidence that performance on an n-back task was predicted by performance on a measure of relational WM (i.e., WM for vertical spatial relationships independent of absolute spatial locations); whereas the same was not true for a complex span WM task. In Experiment 2, we tested the idea that reliance on relational WM is critical to produce transfer from n-back but not complex span task training. Participants completed adaptive training on either a dual n-back task, a symmetry span task, or on a non-WM active control task. We found evidence of near transfer for the dual n-back group; however, far transfer to a measure of fluid intelligence did not emerge. Recording EEG during a separate WM transfer task, we examined group-specific, training-related changes in alpha power, which are proposed to be sensitive to WM demands and top-down modulation of WM. Results indicated that the dual n-back group showed significantly greater frontal alpha power after training compared to before training, more so than both other groups. However, we found no evidence of improvement on measures of relational WM for the dual n-back group, suggesting that near transfer may not be dependent on relational WM. These results suggest that dual n-back and complex span task training may differ in their effectiveness to elicit near transfer as well as in the underlying neural changes they facilitate.
>
> [Keywords: cognitive training, working memory, transfer, alpha power]

--
gwern
https://www.gwern.net

[Leonardo]

I posted this today, but I fucked up at pasting the URL, so I deleted it. 

n-back training is pointless. It has been shown again and again in every single serious study performed about it. 

[Fredo Corleone]

 I agree you could spend your time better but I don't believe it's pointless, it's still a terrific brain task.

[Granny Norma]

I asked this guy in a YouTube comment section if he considered Dual/Quad N back as a form of focused meditation. Here is what he told me:

"I guess to answer your question as to what separates dual n back training from meditation lets dive a little deeper in the brain. To put bluntly breathing meditation while is alot about concentrating your focus on one aspect and trying to not get distracted by task unrelated thoughts (TUTs). In doing so it appears its actually impossible to not get distracted at some point, so instead of just waiting to be distracted it appears meditators have developed proactive control strategies for dealing with distraction, because they are always anticipating distraction they can avoid being distracted. This is a very general aspect of cognition and it might be why meditators have been known to have faster reaction times, more recent studies showing some evidence of faster attentional switching, and just a better overall memory. Dual n back is the exact opposite, unless you are employing purposefully a proactive control strategy you are not getting any benefit as it is very reactive control heavy. A good example of reactive control is if I threw a ball at you without you noticing till the last second, your brain would haphazardly retrieve key perceptual information of the ball like its speed, shape, color ,etc. and your body would react based off that information. The thing is that while it is training your working memory, its not going to help with things actually requiring a high working memory, its more of a processing speed task than anything. I know you mentioned relational training, but its completely different from meditation, like I said in another comment I have no hang-ups with relational training when it comes to theory, but as it stands now it is just theory. The best I could think is it might help the inferior parietal lobule process relations faster, but I think its a stretch to say anything about it at this point."

I have not fact-checked his claims. What do you guys think? Is dual/quad n-back a form of focused meditation? Even if it is not, and if it doesn't train global working memory, do you think it is a terrific brain task? Why or why not?

[Leonardo]

His explanation sounds extremely sketchy. 

[Fredo Corleone]

I think N-back training is very similar to meditation and those who have played know that the most common reason of mistake are TUTs.

By the way I don't think his explanation is correct.