New papers etc.
zzzz
Seems pretty interesting.
--
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.
Gwern Branwen
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4YY8KWD-M&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F27%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4df206eb7b2629b5cd56deccda711618
>
> Seems pretty interesting.
don't really care about. It's just a review article, although I did
like that it covered Moody's criticism.
--
gwern
zzzz
complex working memory span task
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7721/is_201004/ai_n53507996/?tag=content;col1
Gwern Branwen
Random notes:
- they didn't use a speeded Raven's, and they observed no gains on it
> However, such power limitations do not readily account for our failure to replicate a transfer of WM training benefits to measures of fluid intelligence (as was observed by Jaeggi et al., 2008), since we did not find even a trend for improvement in trained participants on Raven's APM. Beyond statistical explanations, differences in the training paradigms used for the two studies may explain the differences in transfer effects. The training program used by Jaeggi et al. (2008) involved 400 trials per training session, with a dual n-back training paradigm designed to emphasize binding processes and task management. Conversely, our training paradigm included only 32 trials per session and more heavily emphasized maintenance in the face of distraction. Finally, the seemingly conflicting results may be due to differences in intelligence test administration. As was pointed out in a recent critique (Moody, 2009), Jaeggi et al. (2008) used atypical speeded procedures in administering their tests of fluid intelligence, and these alterations may have confounded the apparent effect of WM training on intelligence.
> The Raven's APM is not a speeded test. All participants completed the test well within 45 min.
It's quite surprising to me that the reading gains are linked more
strongly with spatial improvements than verbal span improvements.
> Our findings, which suggest an effect of WM training on Stroop and reading comprehension performance, can be informed further by a closer examination of interindividual differences in the influence of training on WM capacity itself. As we have already shown above, participants for whom training promoted an increase in WM span (i.e., successfully trained participants) exhibited stronger improvements for each transfer measure. Taking a more nuanced view, one might further expect to find a correlation between WM improvements and gains on the transfer measures, with greater improvements in those for whom the WM training was most effective (i.e., produced larger increases in WM span) and weaker improvements in those for whom it was relatively less effective. Despite our relatively small sample size, we accordingly tested correlations between WM span increases and both Stroop and reading comprehension improvements. For the Stroop test, the correlations were weak [r(18) = 2.01 for verbal WM; r(18) = .12 for spatial WM] and not significant. However, the results from the reading comprehension measure were more encouraging. The correlation between verbal WM increases and Nelson-Denny improvements was modest [r(18) = .24, p = .13], and there was a strong and statistically significant relationship between trained participants' spatial CWM span increases and reading comprehension improvements [r(18) = .49, p
I wonder how one is to interpret that.
--
gwern
Pontus Granström
Gwern Branwen
> I wonder why people still argue that Moody's criticism is right, do you
> really think that the research is faked? Show me some evidence that Raven
> and his partners which one was the author of the article as well as a
> partner in the time limit research are in fact lying. From what I can see,
> having time limits on Raven's is a common way of administer the test.
I can't even parse your second to last sentence.
No one is saying that Jaeggi faked her research. What is being said is
that the 10 minute time limit makes the test test something else. You
know this.
If 10 minute time limits are so common, then why is Jaeggi's
justification a footnote citing a footnote citing unpublished
research?
Why does Jaeggi's more extensive followup with the elderly (which we
discussed not that long ago) not show Gf boosts?
Why does this not show Gf boosts?
--
gwern
Pontus Granström
Since it's so well established that timing has little influence on the tests there's no reason to make a big deal of it, since it's nothing controversial. In fact RAPM is timed in one way or another! I guess RAPM could be considered speeded compared to mathematics olympiad or really hard math problem. In one way or another it's linked to our ability to think efficiently, if a 3-min "oddman out" is correlated with 0.8 I find it hard to believe that a 10 min RAPM test should have a zero correlation with Gf/G.
gwern
Pontus Granström
jttoto
comprehension? Is the test of reading comprehension similar to what
one would see on the GMAT or GRE? Perhaps a strong spatial WM allows
one to quickly gather key words and information via skimming, thus
being able to answer the question quicker, or quickly find the answer
by looking at the question first.
On Jun 4, 1:03 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Expanding the mind's workspace: Training and transfer effects with a
> > complex working memory span task
>
jttoto
On Jun 4, 3:31 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
zzzz
jttoto
It does show that young adults do improve on certain cognitive
measures (most likely ones most closely related to WM), while there
isn't enough data on older adults to draw a conclusion. I do have a
feeling that cognitive functions can be improved in the elderly, since
earlier studies have shown improvements in WM and processing speed.
Perhaps, Gf relies more on the synergy of many cognitive functions, as
opposed to just WM. I wonder if a regimen designed to train a
vartiety of cognitive functions could improve Gf.
Other interesting points, both the young and the elderly showed
similar knowledge gains after vocabulary training. This goes against
the notion that younger people are faster learners.
On Jun 5, 4:46 am, zzzz <filippaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_frm/thread/68c75...
Pontus Granström
jttoto
on knowledge tests throughout knowledge training. So while both tend
to be equal in knowledge, training does little to improve it.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pontus Granström
jttoto
"Improve it" was refering to the knowledge test within the study.
On Jun 5, 9:05 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's like saying it's not worth to study because you will not learn
> anything. If you memorize knowledge of a certain type and then are asked
> questions about things that you are not trained on, it's not so strange that
> you will not increase your knowledge.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 2:48 PM, jttoto <jtdem...@uncc.edu> wrote:
> > Correction, both older and younger adults continued to score the same
> > on knowledge tests throughout knowledge training. So while both tend
> > to be equal in knowledge, training does little to improve it.
>
> > On Jun 5, 8:30 am, jttoto <jtdem...@uncc.edu> wrote:
> > > Yes, this gives more support to Moody's criticism.
>
> > > It does show that young adults do improve on certain cognitive
> > > measures (most likely ones most closely related to WM), while there
> > > isn't enough data on older adults to draw a conclusion. I do have a
> > > feeling that cognitive functions can be improved in the elderly, since
> > > earlier studies have shown improvements in WM and processing speed.
>
> > > Perhaps, Gf relies more on the synergy of many cognitive functions, as
> > > opposed to just WM. I wonder if a regimen designed to train a
> > > vartiety of cognitive functions could improve Gf.
>
> > > Other interesting points, both the young and the elderly showed
> > > similar knowledge gains after vocabulary training. This goes against
> > > the notion that younger people are faster learners.
>
> > > On Jun 5, 4:46 am, zzzz <filippaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > 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
> > .
Gwern Branwen
> Since it's so well established that timing has little influence on the tests
> there's no reason to make a big deal of it, since it's nothing
> controversial. In fact RAPM is timed in one way or another! I guess RAPM
> could be considered speeded compared to mathematics olympiad or really hard
> math problem. In one way or another it's linked to our ability to think
> efficiently, if a 3-min "oddman out" is correlated with 0.8 I find it hard
> to believe that a 10 min RAPM test should have a zero correlation with Gf/G.
This article says that everyone finished the Raven's within the 45
minute time limit. This is emphatically not true of Jaeggi 2008,
where, IIRC, no one finished the whole thing ever.
And again, as I've said time and time again, the 10 minute Raven's may
be entirely processing since unless you're hellishly quick, you won't
get to the hard questions which would reveal Gf changes. If everyone
can answer the easy questions, and you only have time for the easy
questions, then a minimal correlation with Gf is not so strange.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:43 PM, αrgumziΩ <argu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 5:16 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gwern by the way! I hope you add my 153 score to the FAQ! I can say that I
>> have no score above 150 in my old profile, the highest score closest to
>> matrix-tests is visual sequencing with 140 the rest hoovers around 135 with
>> as low as 117 for factual knowledge. So pretty much a ~15 point boost! From
>> what I can understand the GiGi is pretty accurate and I've got a 150 score
>> on number series when I was 20.
>>
> Let's don't make the FAQ unreliable by reporting scores on tests (if
> one may call them such) for which we have never obtained a pre-
> training baseline...
I agree with Argumzio on this one. I don't know what those scores and
tests are that you mention, and I don't think they really add
anything. You don't even mention how long passed between those scores
and how many levels of DNB improvement that interval saw. The IQ score
section is for pairs of scores on the same test.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:54 PM, jttoto <jtde...@uncc.edu> wrote:
> Spatial WM gains are correlated to improvements reading
> comprehension? Is the test of reading comprehension similar to what
> one would see on the GMAT or GRE? Perhaps a strong spatial WM allows
> one to quickly gather key words and information via skimming, thus
> being able to answer the question quicker, or quickly find the answer
> by looking at the question first.
The article says
'Finally, reading comprehension was measured with the Nelson- Denny
Reading Test (Forms G and H used in counterbalanced fashion across
sessions), using standard test procedures and allowing 20 min for test
completion.'
The NDRT seems to have a website and sample questions:
- http://www.testprepreview.com/ndrt_breakdown.htm
- http://www.testprepreview.com/nelson_denny_practice.htm
It seems to be GRE like, but much easier of course. Your skimming
suggestion seems possible to me; I've known people who don't read the
text first and work question by question. (I've always preferred to
read carefully and then answer the questions, only going back when I'm
unsure.)
--
gwern
Pontus Granström
gwern
Gwern Branwen
> Where does it state that they were given the first questions? We do not know
> which part of the test she gave. Why should Eysenck lie about this? Just
> give me the motive.
Motives? Convenience. Carelessness. Publish or perish. Money. Take your pick.
From Jaeggi 2008:
> Transfer tasks: We used standardized fluid intelligence tests, consisting of
visual analogy problems of increasing difficulty. Each problem presents a
matrix of patterns in which one pattern is missing. The task is to select the
missing pattern among a set of given response alternatives. For the experi-
ment with eight training sessions, we used the Raven’s Advanced Progressive
Matrices (RAPM) test, set II (35), whereas for all other experiments, we used
the short version of the Bochumer Matrizen-Test (BOMAT) (36), a more
difficult variant of the RAPM. For the RAPM, we used parallel forms for the
pre- and posttesting by dividing the test into even and odd items (24); for the
BOMAT, we used the published A and B versions. To keep the pre- and posttest
sessions short enough, we allowed limited time (10 min) to complete the task,
and the number of correct solutions provided in that time served as the
dependent variable.
Nothing about skipping to the harder questions.
On a parenthetical note, Pontus, your emails over the last month or
two have been unusually quarrelsome, fact or citation free, and
generally not interesting. If you have some stress in your life,
perhaps you should take a break from this hobby and deal with it
directly.
--
gwern
Pontus Granström
gwern
polar
opposing informations in the FAQ - and it's great because it increases
its informative value. If we add another pontus's score (with link on
the test) to FAQ, it will definitely increase its value further.
On 5. Jún, 01:43 h., αrgumziΩ <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's don't make the FAQ unreliable by reporting scores on tests (if
> one may call them such) for which we have never obtained a pre-
> training baseline...
>
> > have no score above 150 in my old profile, the highest score closest to
> > matrix-tests is visual sequencing with 140 the rest hoovers around 135 with
> > as low as 117 for factual knowledge. So pretty much a ~15 point boost! From
> > what I can understand the GiGi is pretty accurate and I've got a 150 score
> > on number series when I was 20.
>
> > > I am not aware of any article showing that eldery to not improve Gf but I
> > > would like to read it. From what she told me is that they are seeing the
> > > same results with untimed tests.
>
> > > Since it's so well established that timing has little influence on the
> > > tests there's no reason to make a big deal of it, since it's nothing
> > > controversial. In fact RAPM is timed in one way or another! I guess RAPM
> > > could be considered speeded compared to mathematics olympiad or really hard
> > > math problem. In one way or another it's linked to our ability to think
> > > efficiently, if a 3-min "oddman out" is correlated with 0.8 I find it hard
> > > to believe that a 10 min RAPM test should have a zero correlation with Gf/G.
>
> > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> .
Pontus Granström
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
Benjamin
Gwern, while your FAQ is largely based and pre and post results
comparing the same test, it isn't entirely so. For example, an early
post mentions failing to pass the mensa entrance exam then later
getting over a 150 on the WAIS. A large amount of it is ancedotal.
I don't think that's a problem, since people can see that from reading
it. While, there has been some suggestion that the test itself might
not be great, I'm not sure that the test you've linked too have been
proven any better. I think the Gigi is decent since the same folks
put it out that put out the eCMA that arguizmo took a couple of times
and praised. In any case, maybe a wait and see attitude regarding
this new test ought to be adopted. Pontus says that he's not scored
even close to that before on matrix type test. I'd just assume he's
speaking I good faith.
In any case, I hope your woes abate Pontus.
Benjamin
On Jun 5, 8:19 pm, αrgumziΩ <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am megaparsecs away from agreeing with you, polar.
>
> The FAQ should maintain some level of reliability. A score report on a
> test of dubious value without a pre-DNB-training baseline is as
> unreliable as it gets, which isn't "informative" by any stretch of the
> imagination. I at least shared one on which I had had a pre-training
> baseline and a post-training measure of improvement; there's nothing
> "subjective" in that, which is the whole point.
>
> argumzio
jttoto
norm their test. If they are basing it simply on participants through
their website alone, then the norming would be contaminated, since
those who take online IQ tests are likely not representative of the
general population. (i'm not saying they collecting data using this
method, but it would be the one of the cheaper ways of doing so) In
addition, you will have people who will take the test multiple times,
skewing the average score on the test. Yes, they are controling
retest effects through email confirmation, but that isn't always
reliable.
On Jun 6, 1:52 am, αrgumziΩ <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. I take it you haven't read my post carefully, but that wouldn't
> be a strong deviation from your norm.
>
> Pre-training scores and post-training scores is the bottom line.
> Capisce?
> Lloyd may have taken different tests, but that doesn't suggest
> unreliability. However, it is quite possible that he could have scored
> that highly on the WAIS pre-training.
>
> By the way, I have since lowered my opinion of eCMA; it's too
> simplistic (while touting a ceiling of 160).
> GIGI does look like a genuinely worthwhile test by comparison, which
> has been in the making for well over a year (as I've been informed);
> however, in its current state, the norms on-line haven't been
> established very well. I would give it a month or two before one takes
> it in the hopes of receiving a score that reflects one's standing in
> the general population, especially before reporting it here.
> Thankfully, GIGI has a large pool of problems, so retests won't lose
> reliability (within the first few tries). Those reporting improved/
> lowered/unchanged scores after serious WM-training could share that on
> the FAQ at a future time. Why use the first result for the FAQ when
> better reporting can be done?
>
> argumzio?!
Gwern Branwen
> Gwern, while your FAQ is largely based and pre and post results
> comparing the same test, it isn't entirely so. For example, an early
> post mentions failing to pass the mensa entrance exam then later
> getting over a 150 on the WAIS.
But both the Mensa tests and WAIS have long track records; and I do
put in a long comment noting that there are differences that could
lead to a higher WAIS percentile than the Mensa.
> A large amount of it is ancedotal.
I'd say the entire section is anecdotal, unless you're referring to
something else?
> I don't think that's a problem, since people can see that from reading
> it. While, there has been some suggestion that the test itself might
> not be great, I'm not sure that the test you've linked too have been
> proven any better. I think the Gigi is decent since the same folks
> put it out that put out the eCMA that arguizmo took a couple of times
> and praised. In any case, maybe a wait and see attitude regarding
> this new test ought to be adopted. Pontus says that he's not scored
> even close to that before on matrix type test. I'd just assume he's
> speaking I good faith.
Part of the reason I'm not too interested in Pontus's scores on this
new test is because Pontus is already in that section - with a nice
pre/post pair of scores on www.mensa.dk/iqtest.swf
Why include 2 positive results by the same person? It'd be another
thing if Pontus were reporting declines, though.
> In any case, I hope your woes abate Pontus.
--
gwern
Pontus Granström
The effect of this restriction was to make it impossible for subjects to proceed to the more difficult items on the test. No it was to raise the ceiling of the test and avoid ceiling effects which would make it impossible to notice any differences in G/Gf.
He also states that BOMAT puts added emphasis on subjects’ ability to hold details of the figures in working memory.
RAPM is one of the tests that requires most working memory and the score is lowered by 3/4 of SD from it. It's not that strange to believe that an increase of WM would take the score the other way.
jttoto
the RAPM, in both young and old adults.
On Jun 6, 4:42 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moody writes that Jaeggi *allotted time from 45 min to 10*. This is not
> this is a 75% reduction but according to me it's a 50% decrease. Using timed
> versions have little impact as noticed in much research, limiting the time
> is a well established way of measuring G/Gf.
>
> proceed to the more difficult items on the test*. No it was to raise the
> to notice any differences in G/Gf.
>
> details of the figures in working memory*.
> lowered by 3/4 of SD from it. It's not that strange to believe that an
> increase of WM would take the score the other way.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > .
Benjamin
the hall of fame. It seems questionable now that i've taken it. It
gave me about the highest score i've gotten on any of these online iq
tests...even higher than their former eCMA and I haven't been n-
backing in quite some time :( The questions really just didn't seem
that hard. It seemed like the same rules iterated over and over. OOO
seemed harder, but who knows, could just be me.
zzzz
"We also found substantial far transfer to other executive tasks and
fluid intelligence in all age groups, pointing to the transfer of
relatively general executive control abilities after training."
zzzz
rha...@cox.net
I messed around with the training in '09 and worked by way up to 7 back. I tried to do it 5 days per week, but 3 to 5 days was probably more representative of a typical week. Around August of last year, I stopped entirely. I didn't stop for any particular reason; I think life just got in the way and I never started again. A couple of weeks ago, I decided to start playing again. (At 43, I need to start doing what I can to prevent Gf from going down the drain *too* fast.) I've played maybe 6 times now over a two week or so period and only did a full 20 trials on two of those days. I'm amazed that after such a long time away, I'm almost right where I left off (75% on 6 back). I assume I'll probably be back up to 7 back tomorrow. Weird.
Rick
Pontus Granström
--
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.
zzzz
Haven't read it yet, but it looks promising.
Pontus Granström
quote "During the cognitive training, Gabor visual target with two
different kinds of spatial frequency at four different directions
asked the user to take the Gabor indentify task, which can
effect spatial frequency in visual system and improve vision.
We can get a conclusion that the system not only help to
improve fluid intelligence but also help to improve vision."
http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=996156526&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=996156526.pdf
Haven't read it yet, but it looks promising.