Lumosity training works, published by Mensa.
Pontus Granström
Sunil
On Aug 9, 1:03 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.lumosity.com/blog/lumosity-cognitive-enhancement-research-...
Gwern Branwen
> http://www.lumosity.com/blog/lumosity-cognitive-enhancement-research-published-by-mensa/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=RMKTG_MENSA_FrmrSubs_2011.08.09_A&utm_content=&ll_src=RMKTG_MENSA_FrmrSubs_2011.08.09_A&ll_ch=EMAIL&ll_u=444336&spMailingID=4937034&spUserID=NTE1Njc5NTk0NQS2&spJobID=182621306&spReportId=MTgyNjIxMzA2S0
Phooey, no IQ tests:
> Participants in the study were randomly assigned to one of two groups: a training intervention group or a waitlist control group. Intervention group participants did Lumosity training 20 minutes a day for 5 weeks. At the end of the period, they saw significant improvements on tests of visual attention and working memory (20% and 10%, respectively). Control participants, on the other hand, did not undergo Lumosity training and did not improve.
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
Jonathan Toomim
http://static.sl.lumosity.com/pdf/hardy_drescher_sarkar_kellet_scanlon_2011.pdf
On 8/9/2011 9:10 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
Green
I know these games and it made it easy for me to read it. But I am
not sure the results really support the claim that visual attention
and/or WM improved in the active group.
The study design is good. The active group did four assessments, then
they trained at four tasks for 20 minutes a day (total for all four
tasks) for 5 weeks, completing an average of 29 sessions, then they
took the assessments again. The control group took the same
assessments, but they didn’t do anything between the pre- and post-
assessments.
The training tasks are interesting. First of all, they used 4 tests
from the Lumosity site – (birdwatching, speed match, memory match,
monster garden) and used 4 assessments (divided visual attention,
forward spatial working memory task (FSWMT), reverse spatial working
memory task (RSWMT), and letter memory task).
The problems appear with the results. Results were only significant
for the divided visual attention task, FSWMT and RSWMT. The letter
memory task results were not significant. Looking at the between
groups analysis the results were only significant for the divided
attention task and the FSWMT block test. So, the difference between
the active and control group was only significant for 2 of the 4
tests.
Now, consider those 2 tests. The divided visual attention assessment
is described as being almost exactly the same thing as the
birdwatching task that the subjects were trained on. And, the FSWMT
assessment is really quite similar to the Monster Garden task. So,
training subjects may have gained simply because they built skills
specific to the birdwatching task and FSWMT.
If I have you practice playing classic Pac-man, and then assess your
performance on a "visual-reasoning task" (i.e. Mrs. Pac-man) then have
I demonstrated that playing Pac-man improves your visual-reasoning
skills? No.
So, I see no evidence of far transfer from the tasks to WM or visual
attention. One reason could be that they only spent a total of 20
minutes a day training. That means that they were only spending 5
minutes on each task. That is a lot of task-switching taking place
during what is already a short practice session.
I hate being a nitpicker, because this study was put together so
nicely. It was easy to read, they didn’t try to hide their less-than-
stellar results behind post-experimental analysis, and they had a
control group. But, since I do think that the study fails to prove
the author’s claim I feel that I should post to that effect.
Pontus Granström
http://www.mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/neuroplasticity/iq-sat-gmat-mcat-gre-test-scores/
For those of you who need encouragement.
--
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.
dogb...@yahoo.com
On Aug 10, 4:21 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Read the blog at mindsparke, there are numerous anecdotes about how people
> have managed to join Mensa after n-backing, improving various test scores
Jonathan Toomim
If the first: I really should get around to adding a forum or user blog
function to the brainworkshop.net website. Tsk tsk tsk. Shame on me.
If the second: Brain Workshop, a full-featured n-back program, is free,
you know. Open source, no strings attached. http;//brainworkshop.net.
If the third: Yeah, sucks.
Jonathan
On 8/10/2011 11:39 AM, dogb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It sucks how all of it costs money -.-
>
> On Aug 10, 4:21 am, Pontus Granstr�m<lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Read the blog at mindsparke, there are numerous anecdotes about how people
>> have managed to join Mensa after n-backing, improving various test scores
>> etc.http://www.mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/neuroplasticity/iq-sat-...
>>
>> For those of you who need encouragement.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Green<dmuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I enjoyed reading this study. I have messed around with Lumosity, so
>>> I know these games and it made it easy for me to read it. But I am
>>> not sure the results really support the claim that visual attention
>>> and/or WM improved in the active group.
>>> The study design is good. The active group did four assessments, then
>>> they trained at four tasks for 20 minutes a day (total for all four
>>> tasks) for 5 weeks, completing an average of 29 sessions, then they
>>> took the assessments again. The control group took the same
>>> assessments, but they didn�t do anything between the pre- and post-
>>> assessments.
>>> The training tasks are interesting. First of all, they used 4 tests
>>> from the Lumosity site � (birdwatching, speed match, memory match,
>>> nicely. It was easy to read, they didn�t try to hide their less-than-
>>> stellar results behind post-experimental analysis, and they had a
>>> control group. But, since I do think that the study fails to prove
>>> the author�s claim I feel that I should post to that effect.
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Dual N-Back, Brain Training& Intelligence" group.
napoleon's_pidgin
2003 so technically an older version). Of course, this is on
mybraintrainer's own website... :
"
The Delos Institute, a research facility associated with the
University of Texas and Open International University, conducted a
month-long study using the internet-based MyBrainTrainer.com exercises
and Pre/Post testing for IQ, cognitive efficiency and speed, and
anxiety.
50 subjects were randomly assigned to either treatment groups or
control groups. Treatment groups were required to complete 21 sessions
of MyBrainTrainer.com exercises and take the pre/post evaluations,
whereas the control group only took the pre/post evaluations.
Control and treatment groups averaged 14.5 years of education and 44
to 48 years of age.
IQ testing was conducted using the Virtual Knowledge computer program.
The treatment group demonstrated a 9 point increase in IQ as compared
to a 1 point increase for the control group, a statistically
significant result.
Using the Integrated Visual and Auditory continuous performance test,
similar changes were noted. The MyBrainTrainer.com treatment group
demonstrated a 13% increase in cognitive efficiency and speed, whereas
there was no change in the control subjects.
The State Trait Anxiety Inventory was used to measure anxiety and
stress. The MyBrainTrainer.com treatment group demonstrated a 10 point
reduction on the STAI scale, suggesting reduced anxiety and stress,
while no change was noted in the control subjects.
All measures suggest a significance level of 1%--meaning that the odds
of these results occurring by chance on any individual test is less
than 1 in 100.
It is the conclusion of this pilot study that in this population, the
MyBrainTrainer.com exercises increased IQ, reduced anxiety, and
improved cognitive efficiency and speed, as measured by the specific
testing instruments employed. Whether these improvements will be
sustained once training has ceased, and whether such improvements
transfer to real-world everyday function are questions that may be
addressed in future studies.
Marshall D. Voris, Ed.D. Ph.D.
June 16, 2003
"
Link: http://www.mybraintrainer.com/about/study.asp
Arky
demographic. By that point, an assumption oft-seen is that the brain
is in the throes of aging. Is it an IQ increase above genetic baseline
or is it a restoration of previous function?
Gwern Branwen
> I really have to question studies that test an post-25 year old
> demographic. By that point, an assumption oft-seen is that the brain
> is in the throes of aging. Is it an IQ increase above genetic baseline
> or is it a restoration of previous function?
Well, it'd be far from the first study to find dramatic improvements
in the elderly - remember
https://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/5a7e130affeccfe1
?
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net