Triple Nback benefits

[whoisbambam]

1. Does anybody have any scientific data on the benefits of TNB?

2. Anectdotal feedback?

3. what IS tnb? I mean, i think i tried to load it up, and it seems it
can either be colored squares or different pictures??? does somebody
have a video on what tnb is? are there two variants here? which one
should we start with if there are two?

4. does anybody have any setting changes to make it EASIER to start
TNB for somebody like me, with an IQ of 95-105 or thereabouts?


I am basically trying to find out if there is any benefit of tnb over
dnb or if continued dnb pretty much covers 'fluid
intelligence'............

thanks in advance.

[milestones]

> 1. Does anybody have any scientific data on the benefits of TNB?

No that I'm aware of.

> 2. Anectdotal feedback?

I've just started doing it a couple days ago, mainly because for me
there's both a high enough N level and stimuli to keep it interesting.
I'm at TNB 5, just hit 78% on it tonight, so I'm hopeful to break
through to 6. Not sure of the benefits but I plan on doing 20 sessions
a day for the next few weeks (I might miss a day here and there) and
then see what the anecdotal benefits are. It's been a long time since
I've done TNB.

> 3. what IS tnb? I mean, i think i tried to load it up, and it seems it
> can either be colored squares or different pictures??? does somebody
> have a video on what tnb is? are there two variants here? which one
> should we start with if there are two?

Position, color, sound.

> 4. does anybody have any setting changes to make it EASIER to start
> TNB for somebody like me, with an IQ of 95-105 or thereabouts?

It would be very difficult for someone with an IQ of 95 to 105 to
reach DNB 4 even through superhuman will, so I suspect the estimation
of your own IQ is not accurate. It may be that at one time -- for
whatever reason -- you were functioning in this range, but it seems
that you're potential is well above this. Whatever the case, I think
that if you can reach DNB 4, you can probably get TNB 2 or 3 on the
regular setting (or higher -- best not to limit yourself). I just use
the regular settings so someone else will have to advise on what to
do. I think though, since you're interested in improving fluid
intelligence, you're best off taking a fluid intelligence test before
and after training.

> I am basically trying to find out if there is any benefit of tnb over
> dnb or if continued dnb pretty much covers 'fluid
> intelligence'............

Probably with regard to fluid intelligence one maxes out gains with
rigorous DNB training, especially, as Brain train has mentioned, if WM
is dragging down one's cognitive abilities below one's potential. But
I imagine that TNB would further help with executive functioning,
especially mentally organizing ideas, which has benefit in many
different areas from writing to math to foreign language study.
However, if you haven't gotten all the possible transfer benefits from
DNB, then you'll probably gain from TNB + gain even more in the way of
executive functioning. Bear in mind, I'm only surmising that.

[whoisbambam]

milestones,

thank you very much for your feedback.........

congratulations on TNB 5!!!!--geesh, amazing. I can barely do dnb5!!!!

what is your proficiency on dnb? i would think at least dnb7 at 90%
mastery or higher dnb even.


perhaps after masterng dnb6 i should consider tnb..........

too bad jonathan wont do a study on tnb.........he has the background.


if someone could confirm how to get to tnb..........i am assuming
this:

C: choose game type

Use Position: Yes
Use color: yes
use audio: yes


what is confusing to me, is that this is triple too it seems:
use position:yes
use image:yes
use audio:yes

i mean, that is three stimuli..........

[Zaraki]

"It would be very difficult for someone with an IQ of 95 to 105 to
reach DNB 4 even through superhuman will, so I suspect the estimation
of your own IQ is not accurate."

What do you base this off?

I have gotten about 110 at different IQ-tests, yet I do dual 6-back at
50-60% and haven't plateued yet.

[whoisbambam]

exactly...........

mastering dnb5 is most attainable for IQ 100 IMO

mastering dnb6 with IQ 100 should be much more difficult IMO.......it
seems that this is an interesting 'place' cognitively as far as
advancement............i think that mastering dnb7 (as in consistent
90percents) would be most difficult for anybody with an IQ of 100 or
less indeed............(therefore i think dnb6 to be the 'sweet spot'
for us mere mortals)

in other words, it seems to me that many ppl may not ever get past
dnb6 (or dnb6 mastery) due to the excessive workload to achieve that
result.

yet these are EXACTLY the ppl that should take advantage of
this............as it can open the most doors for them, as compared to
those that are already open for those gifted with iqs 110 and
higher...........

i think all of us with IQ 100 or thereabouts should strive for dnb6
mastery...........

i think my lack of sleep is interfering with my
cohesiveness...........

[milestones]

On May 30, 4:27 am, whoisbambam <smath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> milestones,
>
> thank you very much for your feedback.........
>
> congratulations on TNB 5!!!!--geesh, amazing. I can barely do dnb5!!!!
>
> what is your proficiency on dnb? i would think at least dnb7 at 90%
> mastery or higher dnb even.

I have found that working initially on DNB had helped with all the
other modes. That said, I only play DNB occassionally and I usually do
so over cognitivefun just to get some change on the game. My average
is 8 back above 50% but below 80% on either BW or cogfun. I can hit 9
back just as I can also slip down to 7. My all time high is 10 back on
BW from a while ago but I can't maintain it and consider getting to
that level, luck more than anything. What gives me fits on TNB (as it
does most people) is the color. My goal is to hit TNB 7 -- or barring
that, get good scores TNB 6 (but as mentioned, still not there yet).
I expect to see some sort of cognitive gain if I can get to TNB 6 and
make that a level. I've just started grinding on that though in the
last 2 days...so will have to see.

> perhaps after masterng dnb6 i should consider tnb..........

I think so. You may even just give it some trial runs to get a toe in
the water before getting there.

[whoisbambam]

milestones,
amazing accomplishment.

[milestones]

On May 30, 6:15 am, Zaraki <zaraki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you base this off?
>
> I have gotten about 110 at different IQ-tests, yet I do dual 6-back at
> 50-60% and haven't plateued yet.

I'm basing it on the correlation of WM and fluid intelligence which is
pretty high .5. (The next question is if DNB is an accurate measure
of WM and that is debatable). Another component of fluid intelligence
is inspection time which also correlates close .5 -- so between WM and
inspection time you have large basis for fluid intelligence. I'm not
sure of anything else that determines fluid intelligence save
"abstract reasoning" ability -- but I think that is influenced by the
aformentioned more than anything else. I also think environment plays
a role to optimizing one's fluid intelligence as seen on tests,
because engaging in intellectual activities that depend a lot on
pattern recognition will (or could) help performance on tests of a
fluid nature. In any event, though, IT and WM should in most cases
form the theoretical bottleneck for fluid intelligence. All this to
say, I am making some assumptions that WM and IT (inspection time)
being highly correlated in an individual, which is the case more often
than not, but surely there are those who do not fit the cookie-cutter.
Although rare, IQ scores can skew from performance on tasks tied to
their known substrates like IT and WM.

[Zaraki]

milestones,

I was wondering why you think that just d4b is the limit for someone
of about 100 IQ; an educated guess?

[milestones]

On May 30, 5:08 pm, Zaraki <zaraki...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was wondering why you think that just d4b is the limit for someone
> of about 100 IQ; an educated guess?

Only based on the crude observations of a possible correlation between
people's posted scores and their N level. Most people online I've seen
at DNB 4 or higher report scores of 115 or higher. There is bambam but
he's not giving a score on any test but only a self-estimation without
a score (so I discount it). What tests did you take where you scored
110?

[whoisbambam]

for me, it is good to know that his iq is 110 and he is at 50% on dnb6

i was thinking that somebody with an iq of 110 should master dnb6
quite rapidly.

i wonder if Zaraki kept at least some crude log as to what level he
mastered at what time interval.

for me, master level is at least 80% since that is what dnb is set at,
but personally i believe it should be 90


so, maybe he started at dnb2, mastered that in 1 day
dnb3 mastered another 3 days later
dnb4 mastered another 10days later
dnb5 mastered another 30days later (so we are now at day 44)
etc

[milestones]

On May 31, 12:01 am, whoisbambam <smath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> for me, it is good to know that his iq is 110 and he is at 50% on dnb6
>
> i was thinking that somebody with an iq of 110 should master dnb6
> quite rapidly.
>
> i wonder if Zaraki kept at least some crude log as to what level he
> mastered at what time interval.
>
> for me, master level is at least 80% since that is what dnb is set at,
> but personally i believe it should be 90
>
> so, maybe he started at dnb2, mastered that in 1 day
> dnb3 mastered another 3 days later
> dnb4 mastered another 10days later
> dnb5 mastered another 30days later (so we are now at day 44)
> etc

I would say that the N level fluid intelligence comparison I came up
with is most likely quite flawed to begin with...my speculation that N
level is a substitute for WM doesn't quite work b/c it's a training
task rather than a WM measurement task. Thus, the .5 correlation I
speculated on is in reality probably much lower. Probably something
like backward digit span would have a much higher correlation with
fluid intelligence, especially if it's combined with inspection
time...the german test that was posted a while back would be a good
option for Zaraki...especially the digit and letter span and
processing speed measurments combined.

[Zaraki]

on iqtest.dk I got 108, iqout.com 121

on the german test I got 138 bit, don't even remember if that's good
or not.

my training has been pretty intermittent, so it's hard to ge a clear
figure of my improvement. I have done maybe 50-60 days of training
with 20 sessions each. Since I didn't keep at it in one go I had to
redo some training to get to my previous level at a few occasions, so
bambam's schedule might be fairly accurate.

Also of some importance is that I have been diagnosed with simple
schizophrenia, which tends to disturb my thought-processes quite a
bit..

[brain train]

can you please explain 'inspection time' you are referring to?

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

[Pontus Granström]

Inspection time is the time required to determine something simple like which line that is longest out of two. You can try it at mybraintrainer.com

[Pontus Granström]

Past research has found an association between inspection time (IT) and fluid intelligence using measures confounded with visual processing (e.g., Wechsler PIQ or Ravens Progressive Matrices). The present study related IT to intelligence using a measure (Woodcock–Johnson—Revised, WJ-R) that has nonconfounded factors of mental ability in order to determine whether the association is based upon fluid IQ or perceptual processes. Thirty-seven undergraduate students were given fluid, crystallized, and visual processes subtests from the Woodcock–Johnson and a visual IT task. Stepwise multiple regression and partial correlations revealed that IT was related only to fluid intelligence (range corrected correlation of −.74), supporting the notion that IT reflects some fundamental underlying aspect of intelligence such as neural processing efficiency.

[brain train]

Thanks, Pontus!

[Zaraki]

bambam: Don't be afraid of tnb. I started it recently and immediately
went to t4b, although that was mostly by the grace of correct results
on audio and position. Integrating color can be somewhat hard.
Personally I thought it was more fun than dnb, perhaps because the
list in my head isn't so damn long with it.
Any others have trouble keeping track of how many n-back the letters
are after reaching d6b and higher? I have to keep counting in my head
which makes it even harder.

[whoisbambam]

thank you for the feedback.

i will be postponing the endeavor for now...........

i really do want to master dnb6.

:)

[The.Fourth.Deviation.]

First, everything is hard until your brain adapts to it.


Second, I personally conclude that .5 is a strong link between gf and
DNB, but it still leaves room for a lot of other factors, which is why
DNB only predicts part of gf. That is why people can achieve high N
levels, but still have a lower IQ. I believe that a person of IQ 100
can achieve levels 5+ through training because PIQ/GF is only one
aspect of DNB performance. And DNB can be learned, making it harder
for us to link performance with IQ. A newbie genius will most likely
be outperformed by a mediocre DNB devotee. I predict that a person of
IQ 100 could even achieve DNB 6 or 7, or higher, after sustained
training efforts.

[milestones]

On May 31, 9:21 am, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

One thing to note, though as I have many times in this group. There is
a difference between a person with a average/normal IQ versus someone
who may be functioning at average IQ but has greater potential and who
may in fact have an IQ in excess (or far in excess) of what they are
testing at. Their performance could be depressed by learning
disabilities, ADHD, depression, schizophrenia, manic depression, or a
number of things which WM training -- along with other interventions
--- may help in varying degrees. For someone without any impediments
to their potential, interventions like DNB are most likely far less
efficacious and IQ will likely move less (since day to day functioning
and theoretical potential are already close together). This could be a
person of average intelligence or a gifted individual. If I had to
guess, this group seems to attract people with above average
intelligence but who are not living up their potential for the
aforementioned reasons. For me, prior to training, my WM was mediocre
compared to my long term memory, which was quite good, so DNB has been
an optimal intervention. My example shows that if someone has strong
long term memory, and comparably lower WM, then DNB might help
functioning a lot. But then, not everyone will experience this, and
other interventions may be preferable to DNB depending on the issues
the person is dealing with.

[Closed]

Also, Jaeggi's recent paper (2010, The relationship between n-back...)
showed the n-back training group rising to n-back levels with error
bars around 6.5-7.5. Given that these were just college students,
there were probably several who would have scored around 100 on an IQ
type measure.

[The.Fourth.Deviation.]

I have to point out that improvements must be made, since DNB does
increase cortical activity. Just because these people say they didn't
notice any effect, it's almost certain that an fMRI will not show
substantial increases in pfc activity after training.

[brain train]

completely agree with Milestones- people with  high potential (currently hidden) who are being pulled down on IQ measure due WM issues are the ones who are likely to benefit most from DNB.
i also think that these are the same people who must be looking around to find a solution to their problems from different sources like- forums like this forum, scientific magazines, research papers, brain-training tools, books etc. Reason being that they have a hint that they are operating below their potential.

 

[The.Fourth.Deviation.]

That's not necessarily so. I don't remember seeing anything in Jaeggi
suggesting that individuals who scored high initially did not
significantly improve. The headline of a study supporting this must be
"High IQ individuals have less to gain from brain training". But so
far, most studies just show that it increases performance or increases
efficiency of PFC. A person may lose 5 pounds of weight, but looking
in the mirror feel as if they still look the same. How do we know
these high aptitude individuals do not merely discount results? At
this juncture there is no research I know of which suggests to that to
be the case.

Plus there is some confounding of ideas here. A person with higher
testosterone will be initially stronger, and have more potential than
someone with less testosterone. I know of no reason to think that
intelligence does not work similarly, and as I mentioned, no research
I know of suggests this either.

[The.Fourth.Deviation.]

If what you all are suggesting is true, it means that there is a WM/GF
max that humans can attain, and that people here must be near that
max, and therefore untrainable by DNB. But we know that no one here
has an IQ of 180 or so, so therefore why should we think that no one
can improve? In addition, what exactly is this IQ point that people
are suggesting prevents one from experiencing benefits? I think that
this argument is very tenuous...

On May 31, 1:48 am, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[D. K. Ohms]

we know that no one here
has an IQ of 180 or so

Really? You claim perfect knowledge of everyone's IQ scores? How much
novel BS are we supposed to swallow here?

Ohms

[likeprestige]

Judging from the articles listed below, there is most certainly a
strong relationship:

(2010) Title: Are Representations in Working Memory Distinct From
Representations in Long-Term Memory? : Neural Evidence in Support of a
Single Store
Link to abstract - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20624934

(2009) Title: On the division of working memory and long-term memory
and their relation to intelligence: A latent variable approach.
Link to abstract - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20022311

(2010) Title: Domain-general mechanisms of complex working memory span
Link to abstract - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811910010591

I believe the last title has already been added to the groups files,
let me know if you would like me to send you any of the other
articles.





On Jun 1, 12:19 pm, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> Hey milestones,
>
> I thought you were working on QUAD back in December, no?
>
> Also, side-note: Somewhere you have mentioned that your improved WM
> has now complemented your decent LTM. Personally, I would have to say
> that before n-back I was fairly weak in both areas (however, I had a
> good short-term memory - but could I never handle distractions & I
> very rarely had a greater attention span than that of a fish) & since
> training, both domains have improved significantly (and feel there is
> still more to gain, especially if I keep exploring alternative modes
> to traditional n-back).
>
> I think I remember reading the title of a paper that elaborated on the
> connection between immediate (short-term & working) and long term
> memory, let you know if I find it...

[The.Fourth.Deviation.]

Yours is clearly less than 180.

[The.Fourth.Deviation.]

Prestige, they are certainly linked. Improving short term memory
simply increases the amount of things that might be integrated into
long term memory, in my experience. For example, a strong long term
memory allows one to remember things that one focuses on and learns.
But if their short term memory is strong, they may begin to remember
many things that they do not explicitly focus on.

Many aspects of brain function are linked, its not surprising that DNB
might improve several domains simultaneously, the way that exercise
does, for example.

On May 31, 9:38 pm, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> Judging from the articles listed below, there is most certainly a
> strong relationship:
>
> (2010) Title: Are Representations in Working Memory Distinct From
> Representations in Long-Term Memory? : Neural Evidence in Support of a
> Single Store

> Link to abstract -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20624934

>
> (2009) Title: On the division of working memory and long-term memory
> and their relation to intelligence: A latent variable approach.

> Link to abstract -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20022311

>
> (2010) Title: Domain-general mechanisms of complex working memory span

> Link to abstract -http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811910010591

[D. K. Ohms]

You'd have a hard time proving that. But you've basically admitted
yours is less than 180 even if we don't average your high-end score
with your low-end score. Only an idiot says a random number and thinks
he's talking about IQ. How about a standard deviation according to
which you make this presumptuous and ignorant claim?

Ohms

[Mr. Menesus]

*gets popcorn*

[The.Fourth.Deviation.]

For you? SD 0.

[D. K. Ohms]

lol

It's always fun to watch these so-called intelligent people sling mud
when cornered. Yep, I'm done.

Ohms

[The.Fourth.Deviation.]

I just notice your comments to be foolish and/or rhetorical. So that's
what you'll receive as a response. Toodles.

[milestones]

On Jun 1, 11:19 am, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> Hey milestones,
>
> I thought you were working on QUAD back in December, no?

Yeah I was working on Quad and then stopped for a while and didn't N
back much for the early part of this year. I'm going back to triple
because I want to progress on triple the way that I did on dual. Once
that happens I plan to go to quad, reach a goal with that, and then
pent back and so on to other modes. I want to progress in order of the
perceived difficulty of the tasks rather than skipping around
randomly. My greatest benefit has been derived from dual n back. Once
I graduated (so to speak) from playing dual consistently, then I
started skipping around (with brief commitment to quad) and I haven't
detected much benefit from moving from one mode to the next. I had
never really practiced much with triple n back so I want to give it
some time, do 20 sessions a day 5 days a week, just as I claimed that
I wanted to do with quad back in Dec. which went on for a few weeks.
As for triple n back, I don't get the sense that I'm able to mentally
group on position,sound or color (as I'm able to with dual n back), so
the process seems to be a matter of taking the information in as one,
at least with where I am now -- TNB 5 back. I think the main benefit
so far on TNB is even keener concentration/attention. This is good
enough for me. I'm not expecting any transfer (nice if it happens),
but just better and better focus. I don't have the discipline at this
point to meditate, so DNB is helping putting me in that place of
mental calm, a substitute of sorts. As others have mentioned, it's
important to leave time for things where one actually learns stuff --
thus, applying the training to real problems and/or information
processing. Between meditation and DNB, I've chosen DNB, which I think
will provide increased focus/WM and maybe increase some sort of below-
consciousness threshold information processing abilities that have
been discussed here in this group of late.

[jotaro]

should i speak? you kniw it isnt just chemical thing its more than that.

On 6/10/13, Thomas Austin <mraus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After a month I am unable to master dn5b, and I have taken 3 iq tests and
> the wonderlic, with scores ranging from 130 to 140. I definitely don't
> think that dual n back is completely tied to iq. It is tied to learning,
> which is heavily based on the presence of the right chemical balance in the
>
> brain. The ability to manipulate information and logically notice patterns
> is iq. You could have a high iq with a chemical deficiency memory problem
> and not learn quickly.
>
> On Sunday, May 29, 2011 5:13:37 PM UTC-5, whoisbambam wrote:
>>
>> exactly...........
>>
>> mastering dnb5 is most attainable for IQ 100 IMO
>>
>> mastering dnb6 with IQ 100 should be much more difficult IMO.......it
>> seems that this is an interesting 'place' cognitively as far as
>> advancement............i think that mastering dnb7 (as in consistent
>> 90percents) would be most difficult for anybody with an IQ of 100 or
>> less indeed............(therefore i think dnb6 to be the 'sweet spot'
>> for us mere mortals)
>>
>> in other words, it seems to me that many ppl may not ever get past
>> dnb6 (or dnb6 mastery) due to the excessive workload to achieve that
>> result.
>>
>> yet these are EXACTLY the ppl that should take advantage of
>> this............as it can open the most doors for them, as compared to
>> those that are already open for those gifted with iqs 110 and
>> higher...........
>>
>> i think all of us with IQ 100 or thereabouts should strive for dnb6
>> mastery...........
>>
>> i think my lack of sleep is interfering with my
>> cohesiveness...........
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 4:15 pm, Zaraki <zaraki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "It would be very difficult for someone with an IQ of 95 to 105 to
>> > reach DNB 4 even through superhuman will, so I suspect the estimation
>> > of your own IQ is not accurate."
>> >
>> > What do you base this off?
>> >
>> > I have gotten about 110 at different IQ-tests, yet I do dual 6-back at
>> > 50-60% and haven't plateued yet.

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

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.

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

> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>