Working memory training improves educational attainment, Gc

[Reece]

This was posted a few minutes ago by medicalstudent on
CognitiveFun.net, however I thought it was important enough to share
here for those who don't visit that website:

Abstract: "Crystallized intelligence (Gc) is thought to reflect skills
acquired through knowledge and experience and is related to verbal
ability, language development1 and academic success2. Gc, together
with fluid intelligence (Gf), are constructs of general intelligence3.
While Gc involves learning, knowledge and skills, Gf refers to our
ability in tests of problem-solving, pattern matching, and reasoning.
Although there is evidence that Gf can be improved through memory
training in adults4, the efficacy of memory training in improving
acquired skills, such as Gc and academic attainment, has yet to be
established. Furthermore, evidence of transfer effects from gains made
in the trained tasks is sparse5.

*****Here we demonstrate improvements in Gc and academic attainment
using working memory training. Participants in the Training group
displayed superior performance in all measures of cognitive
assessments post-training compared to the Control group, who received
knowledge-based training. *****

While previous studies have indicated that gains in intelligence are
due to improvements in test-taking skills6, this study demonstrates
that it is possible to improve crystallized skills through working
memory training. Considering the fundamental importance of Gc in
acquiring and using knowledge and its predictive power for a large
variety of intellectual tasks, these findings may be highly relevant
to improving educational outcomes in those who are struggling."

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/3697/version/1

[Pheonoxia]

What facet of WM does anyone think is most important? Position, color,
shape, auditory, orientation, or something else?

[George Avazzy]

On Nov 23, 6:14 pm, Pheonoxia <b...@brockman.info> wrote:
> What facet of WM does anyone think is most important? Position, color,
> shape, auditory, orientation, or something else?
>

I think they are all likely relevant; while you are fundamentally
training the same thing (working memory) you are using different
modalities. Using all of these modalities ensures that the benefit is
gained from an increase in working memory and not from more efficient
processing of stimuli or the use of mnemonics. Our ultimate goal is
not to be able to remember a sequence of positions or colors but to
increase Gc.

[Denis Gorodetskiy]

Guys, how about implementing games described in the paper?

[Gaël DEEST]

The last of the games seems to me similar to the PASAT - probably the most challenging memory-intensive game I've ever played !

2009/11/24 Denis Gorodetskiy <nou...@gmail.com>

Guys, how about implementing games described in the paper?

--

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.

[jttoto]

Were the tests multiple choice?

Could it be that simply people with higher WM can take better and more
educated guesses on knowledge-based questions? It is very possible.

[jttoto]

In other words, I would want to find out if the tests were fill-in-the-
blank, which IMO is a more accurate measure of one's knowledge and the
how efficient one can draw from memory. I can solve some knowledge
based questions that are multiple choice simply through logic and
process of elimination.

On Nov 23, 5:59 pm, Reece <rockyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Reece]

That's a good question jttoto. I read the entire article, however I
was unable to find which testing method was used. Might improvements
on a multiple choice test be more indicative of improvements in fluid
intelligence, since a higher score might be explained by someone doing
a better job of applying logic / process of elimination?

[hansblixx]

Crystallized intelligence was assessed using the
Vocabulary subtest from Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of Intelligence.

Academic attainment was measured using the Numerical Operations test
from the Wechsler
Objective Numerical Dimensions.

Working memory was tested using a Letter recall test where the
participant was shown a
letter on the computer screen, immediately followed by another letter.

It can be found on page 7 "Measures". There it is also explained a bit more.

Reece schrieb:

[Pontus Granström]

I do not agree with the description of Gf/Gc. G or general intelligence which it stands for is supposed, according to theory to be the top of an pyramid of intelligence.  A factor that is suppose to explain the positive intercorrelation between subtests including digit span. In practice G might very well be the executive functions, the ability to handle complex memory connections etc and the Gc increase might just be a result of  learning more while actually using Gf.

[jttoto]

My misuse of jargon aside, I was referencing the fact that if we
assume that increasing one's WM will increase their ability to solve
problems, thus increasing the ability to solve (as opposed to drawing
from knowledge) knowledge-based questions. Can one also apply that
solving aptitude to knowledge-based questions, even if one doesn't
have extensive knowledge of the subject in question? Of course.

I do know that Wechsler uses a multiple choice test for their vocab
section, but I'm not 100% about their abbreviated version. A simple
control would be to use a fill-in-blank test (especially on the vocab
portion), as opposed to a multiple choice test, to see if true
knowledge actually increased.

On Nov 24, 2:38 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not agree with the description of Gf/Gc. G or general intelligence
> which it stands for is supposed, according to theory to be the top of an
> pyramid of intelligence.  A factor that is suppose to explain the positive
> intercorrelation between subtests including digit span. In practice G might
> very well be the executive functions, the ability to handle complex memory
> connections etc and the Gc increase might just be a result of  learning more
> while actually using Gf.
>

> > brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Tervitused]

Here's a free sample of the software being recommended (offered?) by
Alloway. http://www.junglememory.com/gamedemo/demo/demo_01.html
It's a starting point for trying to figure out what the tasks were
like. You can imagine that the letters that you match in this game
could be rotated, as is mentioned in the study.

You can order a subscription to Jungle Memory as w

[Tervitused]

Jungle Memory is from Tracy Alloway, the author of the paper cited
above. http://www.junglememory.com/home/home.do will take you to the
program. There is a link to watch the video demo as well.
http://www.memoryandlearning.com/index.php/junglememory-video/ Anyone
interested in just how the tasks in the study operated should watch
the video.

[Jonathan Toomim]

$49.99 for 8 weeks? Yuck.

I think there's something profoundly unethical about charging
individuals money for cognitive enhancement technologies. As if the
poor didn't have enough disadvantages. Now they have to decide if
they want to try to keep up with the rich in mental capacity or be
able to eat dinner.

I'd like to implement a free/open source version of the tasks
described in the aforementioned manuscript. There are a couple of
things on my todo list that have much higher priority, so I probably
won't be able to start on it until mid-December or January.

Jonathan

[cev]

I absolutely agree with this. I also find it odd that researchers can
make
money for themselves off the back of work done at university - so
they are
being paid twice over (with much of their university salary paid by
the public, on
the assumption that their work is for the general good).

[Reece]

Yes, I agree.

It worries me that many of the same people publishing research on
the benefits of a particular brain training program are the same one's
who stand to gain financially from the program's success. I'd like to
believe most people in academia generally are trying to make a
difference in the world, however it worries me nevertheless that money
could possibly taint one's conclusions or result in an exaggeration of
the likely benefits to be had from following a particular brain
training regimen.

[Exvagus]

I think that they do better than what did those guys from IPCC... They
don't do anything illegal, if they sell it. Anybody can, that's the
reason why those papers are public. I don't even think that it is
unethical. Well, yes, I would also like play that game for free... but
it's only my personal problem ;-)

[Jonathan Toomim]

Well, the fact that they're already trying to commercialize this
before the paper has even been accepted for publication suggests to me
that they might fail peer review. Reviewers don't like it when people
have such blatant conflicts of interest.

Also, if it does get accepted for publishing, I think the reviewers
might ask them to change a lot of stuff in the paper first. For one
thing, most people do not think of arithmetic skill as being an
adequate measure of educational attainment, and saying that a single
vocabulary test measures Gc is also a bit of a stretch. In a lot of
ways, the paper really does seem like a marketing ploy. But maybe I'm
just saying that because, as a developer of an open-source
alternative, I'm biased.

Jonathan

[polar]

Well, it's their choice and sole responsibility if they put
publication of the paper to any risk this way (btw I dont think it's a
risk - they probably made the research first, not the game).

And nevermind this case, I dont have problem when somebody wants to
make money out of cognitive training. To argument "they already get
their money at university" it's socialism thinking. When somebody
finds out something today, he can sell it too - and you need not to
buy it. Even when the paper is public it's not our right to use her
software (but you can make your own sw of course - free or paid). And
I think it's pretty appropriate to get some money, when "your"
discovery (no idea is really yours or mine) directly relates to
quality of life, and potentially allows you to make much more money of
your own. People are not comfortable talking about money, but
everybody must get it from somewhere. No offense, but where do you get
your money, and why do you think it's more ethical then selling your
time / discovery?

And regarding the claim "As if the poor didn't have enough
disadvantages" - well, they surely do, but what kind of poor do you
exactly mean? Poor in our society, or poor in africa? World is not
just, that's a fact, otherwise you and I would take turns on bill
gates yacht (and nights with your favorite actress). Money, as you
surely know, is actaully pretty unrelated to happiness above some
basic level. So when you want to make the world happier, maybe you'd
be better off being nice to people around you, than "giving them
money" so they can have (besides BW) jungle monkey too.

On Nov 28, 10:40 am, Jonathan Toomim <jtoo...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> $49.99 for 8 weeks?  Yuck.
>
> I think there's something profoundly unethical about charging  
> individuals money for cognitive enhancement technologies.  As if the  
> poor didn't have enough disadvantages.  Now they have to decide if  
> they want to try to keep up with the rich in mental capacity or be  
> able to eat dinner.
>
> I'd like to implement a free/open source version of the tasks  
> described in the aforementioned manuscript.  There are a couple of  
> things on my todo list that have much higher priority, so I probably  
> won't be able to start on it until mid-December or January.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Nov 27, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Tervitused wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jungle Memory is from Tracy Alloway, the author of the paper cited

> > above.http://www.junglememory.com/home/home.dowill take you to the

> >>>>> brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%2Bunsubscribe@go­oglegroups.com

[Jonathan Toomim]

> Well, it's their choice and sole responsibility if they put
> publication of the paper to any risk this way (btw I dont think it's a
> risk - they probably made the research first, not the game).

Yes, that's true. I just wanted to remind people to take pre-
published and non-peer-reviewed scientific papers with a grain of salt.

Generally, when a discovery is made that was funded by a university,
the university gets the patent, and then the university will grant a
license for a reasonable fee either to a start-up company formed by
the people who made the discovery or, if they don't want it, any other
company that asks. I see no major problems with that system. I also
see no problems with government funding research that goes into the
public domain, and then gets used by the inventors' startup company,
as was probably the case here. Cev was the one who complained about
that, not me.

I also have no problem with people making money off of cognitive
training.

What I do have a problem with is pricing structures for cognitive
enhancement methods that make it easy for the rich to use and
difficult for the poor to use, because—if the technology actually works
—it will tend to increase socioeconomic inequality. Charging the end
user a fixed rate makes it relatively less available for the poor. I
should have been more specific in my last post, and said "charging
individuals a flat rate for cognitive enhancement technologies." If
the price were proportional to the user's income, I think that would
be ethical. If governments (e.g. school districts) paid the price,
and if it were proportional to that government's tax income or per
capita GDP, I think that would be ethical too (and probably
preferred). However, I'm not sure that the good that would come from
making the smart and rich smarter and richer by selling them cognitive
training programs at a high price outweighs the ill that comes from
making the smart and rich even smarter and richer than the poor. I
would like to see a financial aid program, an explicitly income-
dependent pricing structure, or much lower prices, that's all.

>>>>>>> %2Bunsubscribe@go oglegroups.com

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

>>> trai...@googlegroups.com.

[ayllai]

I admire your generous attitude and mindfulness of others' needs.

Certainly, the inventors or discoverers have their rights to gain for
their hardwork. Whether the price charged is reasonable is beyond our
discussion. I think it is the market that determines it. We cannot
stop MS gaining enormous profits from its own products but we prefer
to have other free options from Linux platform. By the same token, we
cannot object the researchers to sell their braining training products
at which price level but we do hope a free option is available. Even
if the sw is only affordable for those rich, I am not sure if the rich
will become smarter. I don't think a rich Dad can turn his children
into smarter simply by buying a bundle of braining software. Even if
the sw works well, the children have more working memory and become
"smarter", they are still unknowledgeable if they are not equipped
with the knowledge and experience. Also, there should be other efforts
must be paid to make it effective such as your patience, love and care
to your kids and their determination and dedication etc. Personally,
I think that brain training software shouldn't have to cost a fortune
in order to be effective. I think the most invaluable aspect of a free
and open source braining training sw is not just the accessibility to
the poor rather it is the open platform for the users to try and
exchange experience which in turn make the sw to progress and derive
optimal benefits from it. Just like this platform. In all, your care
for the disadvantaged won my respect and I look forward to seeing your
fruit of hardwok and the treasure trove of brain training wisdom
feedback.

[Reece]

My one fear for the brain training industry is that it could in a few
years end up like the weight loss industry where bogus claims abound
if the necessary checks aren't in place. Most of us neuroscience
layman do not have the knowledge and/or resources to objectively
determine the benefits (or lack thereof) of a particular training
regime and are reliant on what we may only hope are the unbiased
conclusions of researchers.

The fact that so many people have purchased Nintendo's Brain Age video
games when something with far more proven benefits (dual n-back) is
available for free suggests that there is a very large market for
selling overhyped brain training products of questionable
effectiveness to a largely scientifically ignorant general public.

[Gwern Branwen]

As long as the papers have enough information to recreate the program
- as Jaeggi has written - then there's no use worrying. And this is
fundamental: if a scientific paper does not include enough information
to replicate the results, then it's not scientific.

And besides, if a program/task is valuable enough to worry about poor
people not having access or the price being too high, then isn't it
valuable enough that someone like Paul will implement it? DNB is
really a simple game - look at how many implementations there are.

The only sticky situations I can think of is if there is content which
cannot be reproduced (perhaps some special copyrighted text or
images), or if it requires hardware. I've never heard of anything
falling in the former category, but in the latter, then the inequity
will simply have to persist - you can't demand that researchers on a
study about piracetam, say, give free piracetam to everyone who is
interested. That's just how property works.

--
gwern

[Tervitused]

This whole ethics debate aside, I think the link I posted early should
be useful to assess what the tasks were. I find that the written
descriptions in the study somewhat ambiguous if you are trying to
replicate the software implemented.

Moreover, working from the videos posted above, some of these tasks
could be simply replicated with paper and pencil tests. For an
example, check the math test. It's essentially a version of the
Operations Span Test. You do a few math problems and after you've
completed them, you are asked to remember the answers to each.

[adhdParent]

Did anybody ever implement a free/open source version of Jungle Memory or other commercial brain training program?

[Palguay]

I have a website for some of the tasks at http://brainturk.com,  I had been busy for a while but now I have some time and I plan to add some more features in the coming days. Let me know if there is something in particular you would like.

--

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/-/K_twqiqALfcJ.

To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.

[adhdParent]

What about adding a version of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, Automated Working Memory Assessment, Stroop, or other tests often mentioned in ADHD studies?  Or does anybody know if there are already free versions of any of these tests available online?

[Payman Saghafi]

There are some resolutions to conflicts like this.  Programs can be offered for free or at large discounts to those who truly can't afford it.  The rich should be charged as should those who can afford to pay.  Inventors have a right to make money and we need them to be motivated to produce the best products available.  Making money is a great motivator, but certainly not the only one.  Many people want to make money AND help other people at the same time.  I'm one of them.

Pay

[Payman Saghafi]

This is a good point.

[Payman Saghafi]

Brain Turk,  I'm also interested in creating platforms that help people improve their crystallized intelligence (independent of Gf).  Many people in the United States come out of high school and hardly remember many important facts that are considered part of standard cultural literacy.  For instance, they may not remember that Abraham Lincoln was president during the civil war!  If we could create fun games that focus on the most important knowledge in major disciplines (ie. Science, math, history, politics etc) this could help make information stick.  Games like Jeopardy are too advanced for many people and don't focus on core info.  Smarter than a fifth Grader is better, but it is still all over the place and disjointed in terms of truly helping K-12 kids learn the core info.  I would like to work with someone to create platforms that are sort of refreshers on the core knowledge that someone needs to know to be considered competent.  (Please review the work of Hirsch in The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy). 

Pay

On Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:18:22 AM UTC-6, palguay wrote:

I have a website for some of the tasks at http://brainturk.com,  I had been busy for a while but now I have some time and I plan to add some more features in the coming days. Let me know if there is something in particular you would like.

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:20 AM, adhdParent <discount...@gmail.com> wrote:

Did anybody ever implement a free/open source version of Jungle Memory or other commercial brain training program?

 

On Saturday, November 28, 2009 4:40:56 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Toomim wrote:

$49.99 for 8 weeks?  Yuck.

I think there's something profoundly unethical about charging  
individuals money for cognitive enhancement technologies.  As if the  
poor didn't have enough disadvantages.  Now they have to decide if  
they want to try to keep up with the rich in mental capacity or be  
able to eat dinner.

I'd like to implement a free/open source version of the tasks  
described in the aforementioned manuscript.  There are a couple of  
things on my todo list that have much higher priority, so I probably  
won't be able to start on it until mid-December or January.

Jonathan

--
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/-/K_twqiqALfcJ.

To post to this group, send email to brain-training@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[John DePace]

I wrote my dissertation on the impacts of working memory on moral reasoning ability, specifically N-back on engineer ethics. Have a look if you like reading dissertations.

[ztech]

IQ tests are garbage, promoted by achievement < IQ types, racists, and graying anglophiles.  Intuition is a rising topic, and hopefully it works out in the favor of those who deserve intellectual merit, and not just people who made an inflated IQ/SAT score and do well on other glorified short-term memory tests.

--

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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/3ca2c983-d5c7-4f03-9c1a-3e6c57670edcn%40googlegroups.com.

[Patrick S.]

Not sure why you are saying IQ tests are garbage. They have their uses, one of them being for observing changes seen through cognitive training. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/CACfSedbEW3E7RU4hznWgybp9mr1RLLen6tz1s1E3pA5DV_LzEw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Wilma Skillma]

IQ tests do have some merit, but mostly to identify learning disability. In the high IQ range, they are exceedingly non-sensical. I have spoken with many 140+ IQ people that are utterly stupid and hopeless and many 100-120 IQ people can be very intelligent. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/CACfSedbEW3E7RU4hznWgybp9mr1RLLen6tz1s1E3pA5DV_LzEw%40mail.gmail.com.

[ztech]

Any thesis of human intellect that involves one being told, when and where to 'think' real hard to extract a relationship, is a garbage theory.  Number sequences , like 8 -> 16 -> 122 -> 244, x  explicitly indicate where there is a relationship but in the real world, such fairies don't exist to help us on our way.  Working memory is obviously not evolved in favor of 'problem solving' (proper), but elementary, (book) learning.  WM reflects very clearly, a clerical  ability that taps sentence-to-sentence concept formation.  A small 7+- system, in itself, is not meant to deal with problems, more than it helps with basic reading skills and normative decision making under the certainty of a small amount of variables.   Until we understand how individual minds develop and build intuition (speed and broad associations),  cache, and maintain complex and dynamically interacting variables, as elements are periodically operated on by conscious WM, the whole notion of cognitive load is masterbuation by rationalist and fools who've had the fortune of having their egos boosted by crap theories, rooted in racism, extreme rationalism, and proponents of mediocre mind. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/CAHAbekZVVdpa5wtR_hkiu3UuWzKsyYM-si3SSgGP4%3DyT66rLiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Breneisen]

Since we're in a brain training group, what methods of training one's mental faculties do you deem supreme that aren't racist?

[ztech]

Brain training n back has little influence on fluid iq, so transfer effects are trivial.  I advocate  using and apply skill sets, to develop a high level of fluency, which in turn is related to intuition.  When a person can spend less time in sequeanced, repetitive tasks, they can pick up on broader abstractions.  There are ideas between sentences, and ideas between paragraphs,  but the meaning of a book doesn't come on a single page.  There are no boundaries or cues that define relationships as the universe is an open system .  Being prepared for the unknown is to see relationships across time.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/ef61b31c-3524-4b73-aa2b-16162cb9051cn%40googlegroups.com.

[David Breneisen]

Do you have more concrete examples of this training technique? What makes it less racist than memory training?

[ztech]

Yes. Chess.  If you are good at chess you will soon see you can think several steps ahead and even manage several games at once.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/143af10f-5f83-4b56-9fa5-546b9246e1a2n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Breneisen]

So you don't believe working memory is involved in perceiving the chess board state and comparing decision trees?

[Michael Taylor]

IQ tests are not racist.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/CACfSedbsoy3M3GhYgtqvEJZEjmXjdHjhAfSouoTN%3DaixsXveXQ%40mail.gmail.com.