- 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.
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
If 10 minute time limits are so common, then why is Jaeggi's
justification a footnote citing a footnote citing unpublished
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?
> 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
The NDRT seems to have a website and sample questions:
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
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
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
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
> 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.
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.
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.