Variable N-Back
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Reece
Nov 22, 2009, 8:16:03 PM11/22/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
I tried searching through old posts, however I couldn't come up with
much in the way of experiences playing n-back on Brain Workshop using
the Variable N-Back option. I thought that was a bit odd and thought
I'd share my experience and see if anyone else has any experience with
Variable n-back.
It seems to me that the Variable option should make the n-back task
"new" at all times and make it less susceptible to any learning one
might expect from an unchanging n-back level task due to the random
nature of the varying n-back level.
Today was the first time I gave variable n-back a serious try and I
was quite impressed with how much more difficult and mentally taxing
Quad Variable 2-Back was versus regular Quad 2-Back. Playing with
0.75s between trials was rather unforgiving and I found myself
frequently making "stupid mistakes" -- mistakes I realized I had made
shortly after the fact despite not playing with feedback after each
trial. All my intuitive QNB training seems to have predisposed me to a
Stroop test like effect where I want to immediately acknowledge every
stimuli which was present 2 trials previously, however this is now
proving to often be incorrect as QV@B often asks me to identify what
occured 1 trial ago.
It seems almost paradoxical to me that something I find so easy (Q1B)
could make Q2B so much harder, however that's been my experience. I
tried playing QV2B today with several different time intervals between
trials: 0.75s, 1.00s, 1.25s, 1.50s, 1.75s, 2.00s, however no matter
how much time I gave myself, scores were consistently 15-20% below my
regular Q2B scores with the same time intervals, so time wasn't the
problem so much as adapting to a new style of n-backing.
Anyone else have experience with Variable N-back? I'm very much
enjoying it as a new challenge.
much in the way of experiences playing n-back on Brain Workshop using
the Variable N-Back option. I thought that was a bit odd and thought
I'd share my experience and see if anyone else has any experience with
Variable n-back.
It seems to me that the Variable option should make the n-back task
"new" at all times and make it less susceptible to any learning one
might expect from an unchanging n-back level task due to the random
nature of the varying n-back level.
Today was the first time I gave variable n-back a serious try and I
was quite impressed with how much more difficult and mentally taxing
Quad Variable 2-Back was versus regular Quad 2-Back. Playing with
0.75s between trials was rather unforgiving and I found myself
frequently making "stupid mistakes" -- mistakes I realized I had made
shortly after the fact despite not playing with feedback after each
trial. All my intuitive QNB training seems to have predisposed me to a
Stroop test like effect where I want to immediately acknowledge every
stimuli which was present 2 trials previously, however this is now
proving to often be incorrect as QV@B often asks me to identify what
occured 1 trial ago.
It seems almost paradoxical to me that something I find so easy (Q1B)
could make Q2B so much harder, however that's been my experience. I
tried playing QV2B today with several different time intervals between
trials: 0.75s, 1.00s, 1.25s, 1.50s, 1.75s, 2.00s, however no matter
how much time I gave myself, scores were consistently 15-20% below my
regular Q2B scores with the same time intervals, so time wasn't the
problem so much as adapting to a new style of n-backing.
Anyone else have experience with Variable N-back? I'm very much
enjoying it as a new challenge.
likeprestige
Dec 10, 2009, 8:45:56 AM12/10/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Hey Reece,
Yes, I have recently exposed my self to variable n-back and yes, much
more challenging.
But the question that needs to be raised is:
Is the method of training exercising an area away from our target goal
(working memory) or are our efforts on this task "right on target".
I'm not 100% my self but logical intuition (if there is such a thing)
tells me that yes, it is similar to the stroop task (focuses on
response inhibition) but also it exercises our executive processes
that manage multi-tasking and components of working memory quite
effectively.
If anyone else can shed a more analytical light on this subject
(variable n-back) it would be very much appreciated, it would be great
to hear other peoples thoughts.
P.S - I've just recently started using brainworkshop, I was wondering
whether anyone had a good training recipe.
Right now I am focusing on a mix between D-artihmatic-back and the
conventional dual-n-back (sound/image stream)
Yes, I have recently exposed my self to variable n-back and yes, much
more challenging.
But the question that needs to be raised is:
Is the method of training exercising an area away from our target goal
(working memory) or are our efforts on this task "right on target".
I'm not 100% my self but logical intuition (if there is such a thing)
tells me that yes, it is similar to the stroop task (focuses on
response inhibition) but also it exercises our executive processes
that manage multi-tasking and components of working memory quite
effectively.
If anyone else can shed a more analytical light on this subject
(variable n-back) it would be very much appreciated, it would be great
to hear other peoples thoughts.
P.S - I've just recently started using brainworkshop, I was wondering
whether anyone had a good training recipe.
Right now I am focusing on a mix between D-artihmatic-back and the
conventional dual-n-back (sound/image stream)
likeprestige
Dec 10, 2009, 8:50:17 AM12/10/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Also, I have my time intervals on 1-sec because ive formed the
impression that it aids the idea of encoding information more
efficiently and there is less opportunity to rehearse info. and more
reliance on intuition. Or have I got it wrong and it's better to have
the normal 3 second interval because it more effectively engages our
attention span?
Insight would be greatly appreciated, thanks....
On Nov 23, 12:16 pm, Reece <rockyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I tried searching through old posts, however I couldn't come up with
> much in the way of experiences playing n-back on Brain Workshop using
> theVariableN-Back option. I thought that was a bit odd and thought
impression that it aids the idea of encoding information more
efficiently and there is less opportunity to rehearse info. and more
reliance on intuition. Or have I got it wrong and it's better to have
the normal 3 second interval because it more effectively engages our
attention span?
Insight would be greatly appreciated, thanks....
On Nov 23, 12:16 pm, Reece <rockyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I tried searching through old posts, however I couldn't come up with
> much in the way of experiences playing n-back on Brain Workshop using
> I'd share my experience and see if anyone else has any experience withVariablen-back.
>
> It seems to me that theVariableoption should make the n-back task
>
> "new" at all times and make it less susceptible to any learning one
> might expect from an unchanging n-back level task due to the random
> nature of the varying n-back level.
>
> Today was the first time I gavevariablen-back a serious try and I
> might expect from an unchanging n-back level task due to the random
> nature of the varying n-back level.
>
> was quite impressed with how much more difficult and mentally taxing
> QuadVariable2-Back was versus regular Quad 2-Back. Playing with
> 0.75s between trials was rather unforgiving and I found myself
> frequently making "stupid mistakes" -- mistakes I realized I had made
> shortly after the fact despite not playing with feedback after each
> trial. All my intuitive QNB training seems to have predisposed me to a
> Stroop test like effect where I want to immediately acknowledge every
> stimuli which was present 2 trials previously, however this is now
> proving to often be incorrect as QV@B often asks me to identify what
> occured 1 trial ago.
>
> It seems almost paradoxical to me that something I find so easy (Q1B)
> could make Q2B so much harder, however that's been my experience. I
> tried playing QV2B today with several different time intervals between
> trials: 0.75s, 1.00s, 1.25s, 1.50s, 1.75s, 2.00s, however no matter
> how much time I gave myself, scores were consistently 15-20% below my
> regular Q2B scores with the same time intervals, so time wasn't the
> problem so much as adapting to a new style of n-backing.
>
> Anyone else have experience withVariableN-back? I'm very much
> frequently making "stupid mistakes" -- mistakes I realized I had made
> shortly after the fact despite not playing with feedback after each
> trial. All my intuitive QNB training seems to have predisposed me to a
> Stroop test like effect where I want to immediately acknowledge every
> stimuli which was present 2 trials previously, however this is now
> proving to often be incorrect as QV@B often asks me to identify what
> occured 1 trial ago.
>
> It seems almost paradoxical to me that something I find so easy (Q1B)
> could make Q2B so much harder, however that's been my experience. I
> tried playing QV2B today with several different time intervals between
> trials: 0.75s, 1.00s, 1.25s, 1.50s, 1.75s, 2.00s, however no matter
> how much time I gave myself, scores were consistently 15-20% below my
> regular Q2B scores with the same time intervals, so time wasn't the
> problem so much as adapting to a new style of n-backing.
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages