Improvement in working memory is not related to increased intelligence scores

120 views
Skip to first unread message

Windt

unread,
Aug 13, 2010, 12:16:26 AM8/13/10
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Improvement in working memory is not related to increased intelligence
scores

The acknowledged high relationship between working memory and
intelligence suggests common underlying cognitive mechanisms and,
perhaps, shared biological substrates. If this is the case,
improvement in working memory by repeated exposure to challenging span
tasks might be reflected in increased intelligence scores. Here we
report a study in which 288 university undergraduates completed the
odd numbered items of four intelligence tests on time 1 and the even
numbered items of the same tests one month later (time 2). In between,
173 participants completed three sessions, separated by exactly one
week, comprising verbal, numerical, and spatial short-term memory
(STM) and working memory (WMC) tasks imposing high processing demands
(STM–WMC group). 115 participants also completed three sessions,
separated by exactly one week, but comprising verbal, numerical, and
spatial simple speed tasks (processing speed, PS, and attention, ATT)
with very low processing demands (PS-ATT group). The main finding
reveals increased scores from the pre-test to the post-test
intelligence session (more than half a standard deviation on average).
However, there was no differential improvement on intelligence between
the STM-WMC and PS-ATT groups.



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-50H1HG6-1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F10%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1429407199&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=528e889856be45411312d42312ad9819
Message has been deleted

Jonathan Toomim

unread,
Aug 13, 2010, 2:55:58 AM8/13/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
On Aug 12, 2010, at 9:16 PM, Windt wrote:

> participants completed three sessions, separated by exactly one
> week

And they found no benefit of WM training on IQ test performance?
I'm... underwhelmed.

Nearly 1 standard deviation improvements were found on the WM and STM
tasks between session 1 and session 3. That sounds like the subjects
took a few sessions to get used to the task, not that their WM
capacity was increased.

My $0.02.

Jonathan

Pontus Granström

unread,
Aug 13, 2010, 4:28:49 AM8/13/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
If they want to prove that n-back doesn't work, train with n-back. There are subtle differences to working memory capacity tasks. Not all are important for fluid intelligence. The training dose seems to be neglected once again, and the gain in WMC is most likely as Jonathan points due to getting used to the task rather than an improvement.



--
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

unread,
Aug 13, 2010, 6:53:23 AM8/13/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com

"Second, increased performance in STM and WMC was
relevant from the first to the second session (equivalent to
8 and 5 IQ points, respectively), but it was much smaller from
the second to the third session (equivalent to 2 IQ points).
This contrast with the rate of improvement for PS and ATT:
from the first to the second session the change was equivalent
to 8 and 11 IQ points respectively, whereas from the second
to the third session the change was equivalent to 7 and 9 IQ
points respectively. These results suggest that participants
approached their asymptotic STM and WMC level on the third
session, while this was not the case for PS and ATT."

"Contrary
to the main prediction, participants facing challenging and
diverse (verbal, numerical, and spatial) memory span (short-
term memory and working memory) task requiring high
levels of effortful (complex) processing did not show better
intelligence scores on post-testing, with respect to their
intelligence scores in the pre-test, than participants facing
simple and diverse (verbal, numerical, and spatial) proces-
sing speed tasks. Actually, the second group increased its
intelligence performance to an equivalent of about 10 IQ
points, whereas the first group increased its intelligence
performance to an equivalent of about 7.5 IQ points."

6 different tasks in each of the 3 sessions doesn't sound like a short
training session, and there were a lot of participants (173!) so small
effects are more likely to show up. Are we really committed to the
view that benefits take even longer than that to show up at all?

--
gwern

Pontus Granström

unread,
Aug 13, 2010, 6:58:28 AM8/13/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
It really doesn't matter since they didn't use n-back, so this study can never disprove anything regarding n-backs improving of intelligence. Naturally time is of the essence. If I do cardio it takes a while before my heart gets stronger, so yes, for cells to change it takes a while. It would be interesting to know how much time they spent rather than how many times they trained. Did they train for an hour or what? Besides if they spread it out gains might have been lost between sessions.  If I train once a week I will never gain any stamina nor strength.

Gwern Branwen

unread,
Aug 13, 2010, 7:17:08 AM8/13/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Pontus Granström <lepo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It really doesn't matter since they didn't use n-back, so this study can
> never disprove anything regarding n-backs improving of intelligence.

That's pretty dogmatic. Every study showing no connection ought to
decrease our probability that n-back increases IQ...

> Naturally time is of the essence. If I do cardio it takes a while before my
> heart gets stronger, so yes, for cells to change it takes a while. It would
> be interesting to know how much time they spent rather than how many times
> they trained. Did they train for an hour or what? Besides if they spread it
> out gains might have been lost between sessions.  If I train once a week I
> will never gain any stamina nor strength.

Maybe you won't measurably improve speed or endurance (although in my
experience a little bit of exercise goes a long way), but would it
really be unmeasurable over two or three hundred people like you? Not
just unmeasurable, but the ones who didn't exercise do better?

--
gwern

Pontus Granström

unread,
Aug 13, 2010, 7:35:33 AM8/13/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
No, it's not dogmatic it's scientific fact. If you want to predict fluid intelligence from working memory capacity you need to use the correct underlying working memory capacity constructs. I do not see how this study decreases the probability of anything. A little bit of exercise can do a lot for a person with "no fitness at all" but to raise a somewhat normal level of fitness it requires quite an intensive training regime.  Since working memory capacity is a undeniable related to Gf it's fair to assume that they didn't improve their working memory capacity or any neuroanatomically inked to Gf and shared by some WMC-task but rather spent some symbolic time at different tasks which we know nothing about. These persons were students, fair to assume an average level of "IQ-fitness" and above.

By your statement that does who didnt train improved more do you suggest that working memory capacity decreases Gf? But how could that be possible if they are not overlapping?


gwern

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Pontus Granström

unread,
Aug 13, 2010, 9:06:40 AM8/13/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
I think it's fair to assume that a continuous progressively more demanding load on brain functions underlying results on IQ-tests might lead to improvements. I base this on the fact that the brain is made up of cells and that it is practice. I might also be open to the possibility of it having something to do with our ability "to get in the right state". I d-n-back you work to "calibrate" against a single goal. While in this study they switch load randomly, hence the objective load becomes on average much lower as you progress. Imagine that I trained running, and sometimes I ran 85% of V02max and the next week I walked for the same amount of time would this prove that VO2max can't be improved with interval training 3 times a week (over a couple of weeks) with an objective load relative to one owns fitness level (resting heart rate and so on)?

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:58 PM, likeprestige <plast...@live.com.au> wrote:
Also, it should be noted that another thing to take away from this
finding fellow Brain Workshop users is that in order to see cognitive
improvement (if this is possible, I am of the opinion that it is but
to what degree I am still unsure) one needs to "more than likely"
spend more than one day each week dedicated to working memory
training. This is off the top of my head but in no research paper will
you find evidence of a free lunch in regards to working memory
improvements to a meaningful degree. Brain Workshop's foundation built
from the claims of Jaeggi's study. In this particular study, as is
well known, participants underwent training at least 4 days a week for
at least 25-30 minutes (may not be 100% correct but not far off). It
was never purported that they would come out as genius' after 1 day of
training each week.

I do 120 sessions everyday (not traditional dual-n-back, I incorporate
different variants). Does my bias to this training impair my ability
to judge the validity of claims that contradict the purported
improvements of working memory training? Possibly, but I think my
conclusion is pretty safe in regards to this particular study.

regards,

likeprestige


On Aug 13, 10:33 pm, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> "Note that participants completed the five sessions exactly
> the same day at the same time every week."
>
> It's a joke. The only thing gleaned that I deemed reasonable to note
> is the following...
>
>  "Finally, it is important to keep in mind that difficulty levels on
> the STMand
> WMC tasks were randomly delivered within and across
> sessions. Therefore, participants cannot predict the complexity
> level of the next trial from the previously presented, thus
> requiring systematic effortful processing"
>
> = Mentioned in the "Testing sessions (procedure)"
>
> I like the idea of implementing this option in Brain Workshop across
> all variants. Another idea is to have an option that turns on all
> variants and the goal of the game is to figure out which one is being
> used...
>
> likeprestige.

Jonathan Toomim

unread,
Aug 14, 2010, 5:02:20 AM8/14/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Statistical noise is proportional to 1/sqrt(n). The magnitude of WM
(and any related IQ) changes in Jäggi's study was roughly linearly
proportional to training time, and if anything showed a threshold
effect whereby the 8-day training group showed no significant
improvement (-0.5–0.8 points), the 12-day group showed a 1.0–1.8 point
improvement, the 17-day group showed a 2.7–4.0 point improvement, and
the 19-day group showed a 3.7–4.3 point improvement. (However, note
that the 8 day group was the one that used the RAPM, and the rest used
the BMT.)

Jäggi had 69 subjects total, with an average of 14 training days in
the training groups. Colom had 3 training days. In order to get the
same statistical significance, and using the assumption that gains are
linearly proportional to training days, they would have had to use
roughly (14/3)^2 = 21.77 times as many subjects, or 1503 subjects.
That's a little bit more than the 173 subjects that they actually used.

Given, the longer training sessions may reduce that requirement
somewhat, but differences in cognitive demand between their tasks and
DNB or the potential thresholding effect mentioned above would
probably have a greater effect in the opposite direction.

Jonathan

Message has been deleted

Pontus Granström

unread,
Aug 15, 2010, 4:03:49 AM8/15/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Great analysis! I would also like to point out that very rarely do science depend soley on statistics.

--

Gwern Branwen

unread,
Aug 15, 2010, 9:23:59 AM8/15/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com

I've added this to the FAQ, and while I was at it, I've updated the
static version at
http://community.haskell.org/~gwern/static/N-back%20FAQ.html

Right now, there are just 4 sections in the criticism section
(http://community.haskell.org/~gwern/static/N-back%20FAQ.html#criticism):
Moody (whom we all know), Jaeggi's old-aging-and-driving study
(Seidler 2010), Chein 2010
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7721/is_201004/ai_n53507996/
linked in http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_frm/thread/80613920c0fbd422)
and this one (Colom 2010). Have I missed any?

Another notable addition is a section on taking breaks:
http://community.haskell.org/~gwern/static/N-back%20FAQ.html#do-breaks-undo-my-work
If there is anyone who has noticed something to the contrary or has
additional citations about the durability of WM gains, I'd like to
hear about it.

-------------------

Speaking of updates, I notice there is a ton of new files uploaded,
and we are in fact getting uncomfortably close to the group size
limits.

Could people please refrain from uploading files such as a link to a
_Telegraph_ article about mindreading, or about mindfulness
meditation?

Try to be highly relevant and think about how much reading time the
existing articles represent. (Also, the filenames are often very long
and unhelpful, but at least I can edit them if it bugs me.)

--
gwern

Pontus Granström

unread,
Aug 15, 2010, 12:23:37 PM8/15/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Is the gabor study flagged as fake? Otherwise it might be worth to add that in favor of dnb training.


Gwern Branwen

unread,
Aug 16, 2010, 1:56:02 AM8/16/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Pontus Granström <lepo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the gabor study flagged as fake? Otherwise it might be worth to add that
> in favor of dnb training.

Hm? Oh, no. I just forgot about it completely. I've added a quick
section on it http://community.haskell.org/~gwern/static/N-back%20FAQ.html#qiu-2009
since no one else seems to regard it as suspicious and I don't have
any smoking guns that would make me feel justified in omitting it
entirely.

--
gwern

Message has been deleted

Pontus Granström

unread,
Aug 16, 2010, 4:09:34 AM8/16/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Yes great FAQ! Here's a list on what I would like to include

1. Acute hypoglycemia impairs nonverbal intelligence. Shows the importance of bloodsugar levels / WM for performance on Gf-tests.
2. Do working memory and susceptibility to interference predict individual differences in fluid intelligence? Shows that classical WMC predicts RAPM-score.
3. Brain networks for working memory and factors of intelligence assessed in males and females with fMRI and DTI. Shows that n-back indeed overlaps with Gf.




On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Book Alcohol <plast...@live.com.au> wrote:
Gwern,

Think you are doing a great job with the FAQ, let me know if you would ever like any help!

Regards,

likeprestige
> --
> 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.
>

Pontus Granström

unread,
Aug 16, 2010, 7:08:45 AM8/16/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Sorry, #2 predicts SPM score! It might also be interesting to have a section for brainwave entrainment.
Message has been deleted

Gwern Branwen

unread,
Aug 17, 2010, 4:08:33 AM8/17/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Pontus Granström <lepo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, #2 predicts SPM score! It might also be interesting to have a section
> for brainwave entrainment.

I'm skeptical that there is any value to entrainment - with
meditation, I can pull up hundreds of articles on it and its benefits,
but can one do that with entrainment?

(Entrainment at least is more closely connected to n-backing than
hypoglycemia, since arguably both draw on/enhance attentional control
and focus to achieve whatever benefits.)

> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Pontus Granström <lepo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Yes great FAQ! Here's a list on what I would like to include
>>
>> 1. Acute hypoglycemia impairs nonverbal intelligence. Shows the importance
>> of bloodsugar levels / WM for performance on Gf-tests.

This is no doubt true, but it seems too broad for an 'N-back FAQ'. I
mean, if we're going to throw in all nutrition information related to
IQ, might as well throw in all the studies on iodine deficiencies as
well!

But actually, it's useful in the introduction as an example of why
results in psychology are untrustworthy, as part of the laundry list
of confounding factors.

>> 2. Do working memory and susceptibility to interference predict individual
>> differences in fluid intelligence? Shows that classical WMC predicts
>> RAPM-score.
>> 3. Brain networks for working memory and factors of intelligence assessed
>> in males and females with fMRI and DTI. Shows that n-back indeed overlaps
>> with Gf.

I've incorporated these into the intro explaining why the WM=IQ
equation has been suggested. As ever:
http://community.haskell.org/~gwern/static/N-back%20FAQ.html

For the curious, here is the changelog from the repo:

[04:07 AM] 37Mb$ changes --max-count=20 N-back\ FAQ.page
Changes to N-back FAQ.page:

Tue Aug 17 04:05:55 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* ln 2 studies about wm=iq
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 3
-See my article on [N-back]() in general. It's mental training
intended to improve your intelligence, and specifically your [working
memory](!Wikipedia).
+See my article on [N-back]() in general. It's mental training
intended to improve your intelligence, and specifically your [working
memory](!Wikipedia). The theory goes that WM predicts and correlates
with IQ very well^[See for example ["Do working memory and


susceptibility to interference predict individual differences in fluid

intelligence?"](http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a757621823),
Borella 2006; WM predicts IQ better than strong focus/attention.
Available in Group Files] and may well use the same neural
networks^[["Brain networks for working memory and factors of


intelligence assessed in males and females with fMRI and

DTI"](http://www.citeulike.org/article/7117360), Tang 2010; it found
that "individual differences in activation during the n-back task were
correlated to the general intelligence factor (g), as well as to
distilled estimates (removing g) of speed of reasoning, numerical
ability, and spatial ability, but not to memory". PDF available in
Group Files.]
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 379
-The main Jaeggi studies (2003, and 2008) are available in the
Group's [Files](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/files)
folder, as is the McNab 2009 study showing physical changes to
dopamine neurochemistry after N-back training. Working memory training
including variants on dual n-back has been shown to physically
change/increase the distribution of white matter in the
brain^[["Training of Working Memory Impacts Structural
Connectivity"](http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/9/3297),
Takeuchi 2010 in _[Journal of Neuroscience](!Wikipedia)_; available in
the group files.] All of the studies in that folder was well worth
reading for background information.
+The main Jaeggi studies (2003, and 2008) are available in the
Group's [Files](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/files)
folder, as is the McNab 2009 study showing physical changes to
dopamine neurochemistry after N-back training. Working memory training
including variants on dual n-back has been shown to physically
change/increase the distribution of white matter in the
brain^[["Training of Working Memory Impacts Structural
Connectivity"](http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/9/3297),
Takeuchi 2010 in _[Journal of Neuroscience](!Wikipedia)_; available in
the Group Files.] All of the studies in that folder was well worth
reading for background information.

Tue Aug 17 03:58:01 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* rm spurious '#'s
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 179
-- [Mensa Norway](http://mensa.no/olavtesten/#)
+- [Mensa Norway](http://mensa.no/olavtesten/)
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 292
-moe [writes](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/7e859b3a7bfeb0d8#):
+moe [writes](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/7e859b3a7bfeb0d8):

Tue Aug 17 03:56:30 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* apparently all my section links were broken?
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 7
-N-back training is sometimes referred to simply as 'N-backing',
and participants in such training are called 'N-backers'. Almost
everyone uses the Free, featureful & portable program [Brain
Workshop](http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/), abbreviated "BW"
(but see [the software section](#Software) for alternatives).
+N-back training is sometimes referred to simply as 'N-backing',
and participants in such training are called 'N-backers'. Almost
everyone uses the Free, featureful & portable program [Brain
Workshop](http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/), abbreviated "BW"
(but see [the software section](#software) for alternatives).
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 31
-DNB, on the other hand, requires a minimum of 15 hours before one
can expect genuine somatic improvements. The task itself is unproven -
the Jaeggi studies are suggestive, not definitive (and there are
[contrary results](#Criticism)). Programs for DNB training rely
essentially on guesswork as they explore the large design-space; there
are no data on what features are essential, what sort of presentation
optimal, or even how long or when to train for. The task itself is
unenjoyable. It can be wearying, difficult & embarrassing.
+DNB, on the other hand, requires a minimum of 15 hours before one
can expect genuine somatic improvements. The task itself is unproven -
the Jaeggi studies are suggestive, not definitive (and there are
[contrary results](#criticism)). Programs for DNB training rely
essentially on guesswork as they explore the large design-space; there
are no data on what features are essential, what sort of presentation
optimal, or even how long or when to train for. The task itself is
unenjoyable. It can be wearying, difficult & embarrassing.
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 35
-I do it because I find it fascinating. Fascinating that WM can be
so large a part of IQ; fascinating that it can be increased by an
apparently trivial exercise. I'm fascinated that there are measurable
gross changes in brain activity & chemistry & composition^[see eg.
[McNab](#What's some relevant research?)] - that the effects are not
purely 'mental' or placebo. I'm fascinated by how the sequence of
positions and letters can at some times appear in my mind with
boundless lucidity, yet at other times I grope confused in a mental
murk unsure of even what the last position/letter was - even though I
can rise from my computer and go about normal activities normally; or
with how time can stretch and compress during N-backing[^time]. I'm
fascinated by how a single increase in _n_-level can render the task
nightmarishly difficult when I just finished _n-1_ at 90 or 100%. I'm
fascinated by how saccading, another apparently trivial exercise, can
reliably boost my score by 10 or 20%, and how my mind seems to be
fagged after just a few rounds but recovers within minutes. I'm
equally fascinated by the large literature on WM: what it is, what's
it good for, how it can be manipulated, etc.
+I do it because I find it fascinating. Fascinating that WM can be
so large a part of IQ; fascinating that it can be increased by an
apparently trivial exercise. I'm fascinated that there are measurable
gross changes in brain activity & chemistry & composition^[see eg.
[McNab](#whats-some-relevant-research)] - that the effects are not
purely 'mental' or placebo. I'm fascinated by how the sequence of
positions and letters can at some times appear in my mind with
boundless lucidity, yet at other times I grope confused in a mental
murk unsure of even what the last position/letter was - even though I
can rise from my computer and go about normal activities normally; or
with how time can stretch and compress during N-backing[^time]. I'm
fascinated by how a single increase in _n_-level can render the task
nightmarishly difficult when I just finished _n-1_ at 90 or 100%. I'm
fascinated by how saccading, another apparently trivial exercise, can
reliably boost my score by 10 or 20%, and how my mind seems to be
fagged after just a few rounds but recovers within minutes. I'm
equally fascinated by the large literature on WM: what it is, what's
it good for, how it can be manipulated, etc.
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 129
-Mailing list members [report
benefits](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/eacf724158e04506)
even if they have plateaued at 3 or 4-back; see the [benefits
section](#Benefits).
+Mailing list members [report
benefits](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/eacf724158e04506)
even if they have plateaued at 3 or 4-back; see the [benefits
section](#benefits).
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 327
--[Chris Warren](N-back FAQ#Hardcore) summarizes the results of
his intensive practice (covered above): "For those that are curious, I
noticed the largest change in my thought processes on Wednesday. My
abilities were noticeably different, to the extent that, at some
points, it was, well, startling. I've started getting used to the
feeling, so I can't really compare my intelligence now vs. Wednesday.
However, I'm completely confident that I've become smarter. Under the
kind of stress I've put my brain through, I can't imagine a scenario
where that _wouldn't_ happen."\
+-[Chris Warren](N-back FAQ#hardcore) summarizes the results of
his intensive practice (covered above): "For those that are curious, I
noticed the largest change in my thought processes on Wednesday. My
abilities were noticeably different, to the extent that, at some
points, it was, well, startling. I've started getting used to the
feeling, so I can't really compare my intelligence now vs. Wednesday.
However, I'm completely confident that I've become smarter. Under the
kind of stress I've put my brain through, I can't imagine a scenario
where that _wouldn't_ happen."\

Tue Aug 17 03:54:17 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* try to fix ln
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 35
-I do it because I find it fascinating. Fascinating that WM can be
so large a part of IQ; fascinating that it can be increased by an
apparently trivial exercise. I'm fascinated that there are measurable
gross changes in brain activity & chemistry & composition^[see eg.
[McNab](#What\e2\80\99s some relevant research?)] - that the effects
are not purely 'mental' or placebo. I'm fascinated by how the sequence
of positions and letters can at some times appear in my mind with
boundless lucidity, yet at other times I grope confused in a mental
murk unsure of even what the last position/letter was - even though I
can rise from my computer and go about normal activities normally; or
with how time can stretch and compress during N-backing[^time]. I'm
fascinated by how a single increase in _n_-level can render the task
nightmarishly difficult when I just finished _n-1_ at 90 or 100%. I'm
fascinated by how saccading, another apparently trivial exercise, can
reliably boost my score by 10 or 20%, and how my mind seems to be
fagged after just a few rounds but recovers within minutes. I'm
equally fascinated by the large literature on WM: what it is, what's
it good for, how it can be manipulated, etc.
+I do it because I find it fascinating. Fascinating that WM can be
so large a part of IQ; fascinating that it can be increased by an
apparently trivial exercise. I'm fascinated that there are measurable
gross changes in brain activity & chemistry & composition^[see eg.
[McNab](#What's some relevant research?)] - that the effects are not
purely 'mental' or placebo. I'm fascinated by how the sequence of
positions and letters can at some times appear in my mind with
boundless lucidity, yet at other times I grope confused in a mental
murk unsure of even what the last position/letter was - even though I
can rise from my computer and go about normal activities normally; or
with how time can stretch and compress during N-backing[^time]. I'm
fascinated by how a single increase in _n_-level can render the task
nightmarishly difficult when I just finished _n-1_ at 90 or 100%. I'm
fascinated by how saccading, another apparently trivial exercise, can
reliably boost my score by 10 or 20%, and how my mind seems to be
fagged after just a few rounds but recovers within minutes. I'm
equally fascinated by the large literature on WM: what it is, what's
it good for, how it can be manipulated, etc.

Tue Aug 17 03:53:04 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* cpedit; add more germane links
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 29
-Meditation, for example, is easier, faster, and ultra-portable.
Typing training will directly improve your facility with a computer, a
valuable skill for this modern world. [Spaced repetition](!Wikipedia)
memorization techniques offer unparalleled advantages to students.
[Nootropics](!Wikipedia) are the epitome of ease (just swallow!), and
their effects are much more easily assessed - one can even run
double-blind experiments on oneself, impossible with dual N-back.
Other supplements like [melatonin](!Wikipedia) can deliver benefits
incommensurable with DNB - what is the value of an extra hour of sleep
compared to another slot in working memory? Modest changes to one's
diet and environs can fundamentally improve one's wellbeing. Even
basic training in reading, with the crudest
[tachistoscope](!Wikipedia) techniques, can pay large dividends if one
is, say, below a basic level of reading like 200[WPM](!Wikipedia) &
still subvocalizing. And all of these can start paying off
immediately.
+Meditation, for example, is easier, faster, and ultra-portable.
Typing training will directly improve your facility with a computer, a
valuable skill for this modern world. [Spaced repetition](!Wikipedia)
memorization techniques offer unparalleled advantages to students.
[Nootropics](!Wikipedia) are the epitome of ease (just swallow!), and
their effects are much more easily assessed - one can even run
double-blind experiments on oneself, impossible with dual N-back.
Other supplements like [melatonin](!Wikipedia) can deliver benefits
incommensurable with DNB - what is the value of an extra hour of sleep
compared to another slot in working memory? Modest changes to one's
diet and environs can fundamentally improve one's wellbeing. Even
basic training in reading, with the crudest
[tachistoscope](!Wikipedia) techniques, can pay large dividends if one
is below a basic level of reading like 200[WPM](!Wikipedia) & still
subvocalizing. And all of these can start paying off immediately.
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 31
-DNB, on the other hand, requires a minimum of 15 hours before one
can expect genuine somatic improvements. The task itself is unproven -
the Jaeggi studies are suggestive, not definitive. Programs for DNB
training rely essentially on guesswork as they explore the large
design-space; there are no data on what features are essential, what
sort of presentation optimal, or even how long or when to train for.
The task itself is unenjoyable. It can be wearying, difficult &
embarrassing.
+DNB, on the other hand, requires a minimum of 15 hours before one
can expect genuine somatic improvements. The task itself is unproven -
the Jaeggi studies are suggestive, not definitive (and there are
[contrary results](#Criticism)). Programs for DNB training rely
essentially on guesswork as they explore the large design-space; there
are no data on what features are essential, what sort of presentation
optimal, or even how long or when to train for. The task itself is
unenjoyable. It can be wearying, difficult & embarrassing.
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 33
-So why then do I, at least, persevere with DNB?
+So why then do I persevere with DNB?
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 35
-I do it because I find it fascinating. Fascinating that WM can be
so large a part of IQ; fascinating that it can be increased by an
apparently trivial exercise. I'm fascinated that there are measurable
gross changes in brain chemistry & activity - that the effects are not
purely 'mental' or placebo. I'm fascinated by how the sequence of
positions and letters can at some times appear in my mind with
boundless lucidity, yet at other times I grope confused in a mental
murk unsure of even what the last position/letter was - even though I
can rise from my computer and go about normal activities normally; or
with how time can stretch and compress during N-backing[^time]. I'm
fascinated by how a single increase in _n_-level can render the task
nightmarishly difficult when I just finished _n-1_ at 90 or 100%. I'm
fascinated by how saccading, another apparently trivial exercise, can
reliably boost my score by 10 or 20%, and how my mind seems to be
fagged after just a few rounds but recovers within minutes. I'm
equally fascinated by the large literature on WM: what it is, what's
it good for, how it can be manipulated, etc.
+I do it because I find it fascinating. Fascinating that WM can be
so large a part of IQ; fascinating that it can be increased by an
apparently trivial exercise. I'm fascinated that there are measurable
gross changes in brain activity & chemistry & composition^[see eg.
[McNab](#What\e2\80\99s some relevant research?)] - that the effects
are not purely 'mental' or placebo. I'm fascinated by how the sequence
of positions and letters can at some times appear in my mind with
boundless lucidity, yet at other times I grope confused in a mental
murk unsure of even what the last position/letter was - even though I
can rise from my computer and go about normal activities normally; or
with how time can stretch and compress during N-backing[^time]. I'm
fascinated by how a single increase in _n_-level can render the task
nightmarishly difficult when I just finished _n-1_ at 90 or 100%. I'm
fascinated by how saccading, another apparently trivial exercise, can
reliably boost my score by 10 or 20%, and how my mind seems to be
fagged after just a few rounds but recovers within minutes. I'm
equally fascinated by the large literature on WM: what it is, what's
it good for, how it can be manipulated, etc.
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 43
-You must read this skeptically also because the N-back community
formed around the [mailing
list](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training) *is* a community.
That means it is prone to all the biases and issues of a community.
One would expect a community formed around a technique or practice to
be made up only of people who find value in it; any material (like
this FAQ or included testimonials) is automatically suspect. Imagine
if scientists published only papers which showed new results, and no
papers reporting failure to replicate! Why would any N-backer hang
around who had discovered that DNB was not useful or a fraud?
Certainly the fans would not thank him. ([Eliezer
Yudkowsky](!Wikipedia) has an excellent essay called ["Evaporative
Cooling of Group
Beliefs"](http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beliefs/)
on just this topic.)
+You must read this skeptically also because the N-back community
formed around the [mailing
list](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training) *is* a community.
That means it is prone to all the biases and issues of a community.
One would expect a community formed around a technique or practice to
be made up only of people who find value in it; any material (like
this FAQ or included testimonials) is automatically suspect due to
biases such as the [commitment or sunk cost bias](!Wikipedia
"Escalation of commitment"). Imagine if scientists published only
papers which showed new results, and no papers reporting failure to
replicate! Why would any N-backer hang around who had discovered that
DNB was not useful or a fraud? Certainly the fans would not thank him.
([Eliezer Yudkowsky](!Wikipedia) has an excellent essay called
["Evaporative Cooling of Group
Beliefs"](http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beliefs/)
on just this topic.)
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 45
-Finally, you must read skeptically because this is about
psychology. Psychology is notoriously for being one of the hardest
scientific fields to get solid results in, because everybody is weird
and different. As one of my professors joked, if you have 2 psychology
papers reporting the same effect, one of them is wrong. It's very
tempting to engage in ["Generalizing From One
Example"](http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/)
but you mustn't. Everybody is different; your positive (or negative)
result could be due to a [placebo effect](!Wikipedia), it could be
thanks to that recent shift in your sleep schedule, it could be the
exercise you're getting, it could be a mild [seasonal
depression](!Wikipedia "Seasonal affective disorder") lifting (or
setting in), it could be a [calcium
deficiency](http://lesswrong.com/lw/15w/experiential_pica/), etc.
+Finally, you must read skeptically because this is about
psychology. Psychology is notoriously for being one of the hardest
scientific fields to get solid results in, because everybody is
[WEIRD](http://lesswrong.com/lw/17x/beware_of_weird_psychological_samples/)
and different. As one of my professors joked, if you have 2 psychology
papers reporting the same result, one of them is wrong. It's very
tempting to engage in ["Generalizing From One
Example"](http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/)
but you mustn't. Everybody is different; your positive (or negative)
result could be due to a [placebo effect](!Wikipedia), it could be
thanks to that recent shift in your sleep schedule, it could be the
exercise you're getting, it could be a mild [seasonal
depression](!Wikipedia "Seasonal affective disorder") lifting (or
setting in), it could be a [calcium
deficiency](http://lesswrong.com/lw/15w/experiential_pica/), [iodine
deficiency](!Wikipedia "Cretinism"),
[hypoglycemia](!Wikipedia)^[["Acute hypoglycemia impairs nonverbal
intelligence: importance of avoiding ceiling effects in cognitive
function testing."](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15161802);
[PDF](http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/iand/Warren%20(2004)%20Diabetes%20Care%20raven%20alice%20heim%20hypoglycaemia.pdf)]
etc.

Tue Aug 17 03:20:45 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* include anotehr cite about WM training causing physical changes
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 379
-The main Jaeggi studies (2003, and 2008) are available in the
Group's [Files](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/files)
folder, as is the McNab 2009 study showing physical changes to
dopamine neurochemistry after N-back training. All of the studies in
that folder was well worth reading for background information.
+The main Jaeggi studies (2003, and 2008) are available in the
Group's [Files](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/files)
folder, as is the McNab 2009 study showing physical changes to
dopamine neurochemistry after N-back training. Working memory training
including variants on dual n-back has been shown to physically
change/increase the distribution of white matter in the
brain^[["Training of Working Memory Impacts Structural
Connectivity"](http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/9/3297),
Takeuchi 2010 in _[Journal of Neuroscience](!Wikipedia)_; available in
the group files.] All of the studies in that folder was well worth
reading for background information.

Mon Aug 16 01:52:11 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* +support study, qiu 2009
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 436
+## Support
+### Qiu 2009
+
+["Study on Improving Fluid Intelligence through Cognitive
Training System Based on Gabor
Stimulus"](http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICISE.2009.1124)
([local copy](docs/qiu2009.pdf)), 2009 First International Conference
on Information Science and Engineering, abstract:
+
+> "General fluid intelligence (_Gf_) is a human ability to reason
and solve new problems independently of previously acquired knowledge
and experience. It is considered one of the most important factors in
learning. One of the issues which academic people concentrates on is
whether _Gf_ of adults can be improved. According to the Dual N-back
working memory theory and the characteristics of visual perceptual
learning, this paper put forward cognitive training pattern based on
Gabor stimuli. A total of 20 undergraduate students at 24 years old
participated in the experiment, with ten training sessions for ten
days. Through using Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices as the
evaluation method to get and analyze the experimental results, it was
proved that training pattern can improve fluid intelligence of adults.
This will promote a wide range of applications in the field of adult
intellectual education."
+
+Discussion and criticism of this paper took place in
[2](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_frm/thread/7321c36dca3dcfad/3eb3ac6bd64498f0)
[threads](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_frm/thread/80613920c0fbd422/3e7310cc84628fea);
the SPM was administer in 25 minutes, which while not as fast as
Jaeggi 2008, is still not the normal length
+

Sun Aug 15 09:48:58 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* meditation helps nback. hope readers remember what 'S2B' means!
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 563
-- Buddhist-style [meditation](!Wikipedia) has been recommended
(there is a good [Vipassana](!Wikipedia) textbook available online;
see ["Mindfulness in Plain
English"](http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html), and the
<http://openfocus.com/> website has been mentioned). Meditation has
been [well-studied](!Wikipedia "Research on meditation") and shown to
induce [physical
changes](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8317-meditation-builds-up-the-brain.html)
and [improve executive function &
WM](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414184220.htm)
([local copy of Zeidan 2010](docs/zeidan2010.pdf))
+- Buddhist-style [meditation](!Wikipedia) has been recommended
(there is a good [Vipassana](!Wikipedia) textbook available online;
see ["Mindfulness in Plain
English"](http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html), and the
<http://openfocus.com/> website has been mentioned). Meditation has
been [well-studied](!Wikipedia "Research on meditation") and shown to
induce [physical
changes](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8317-meditation-builds-up-the-brain.html)
and [improve executive function &
WM](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414184220.htm) as
well as S2B ([local copy of Zeidan 2010](docs/zeidan2010.pdf)).

Sun Aug 15 09:34:34 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* expand meditation section
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 563
-- Buddhist-style meditation has been recommended (there is a good
Vipassana textbook available online; see ["Mindfulness in Plain
English"](http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html), and the
<http://openfocus.com/> website has been mentioned).
+- Buddhist-style [meditation](!Wikipedia) has been recommended
(there is a good [Vipassana](!Wikipedia) textbook available online;
see ["Mindfulness in Plain
English"](http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html), and the
<http://openfocus.com/> website has been mentioned). Meditation has
been [well-studied](!Wikipedia "Research on meditation") and shown to
induce [physical
changes](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8317-meditation-builds-up-the-brain.html)
and [improve executive function &
WM](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414184220.htm)
([local copy of Zeidan 2010](docs/zeidan2010.pdf))

Sun Aug 15 09:16:53 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* kn tri 52 as an IQ test
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 186
+- [Jouve-
+Cerebrals test of
induction](http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=44) (formerly 'Tri
52')

Sun Aug 15 09:06:30 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* +section on Chein 2010; forgot this one!
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 462
+### Chein 2010
+
+["Expanding the mind's workspace: Training and transfer effects with a
+complex working memory span
task"](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7721/is_201004/ai_n53507996/)
([local copy](docs/chein2010.pdf)); from the introduction:
+
+> "In the present study, a novel working memory (WM) training
paradigm was used to test the malleability of WM capacity and to
determine the extent to which the benefits of this training could be
transferred to other cognitive skills. Training involved verbal and
spatial versions of a complex WM span task designed to emphasize
simultaneous storage and processing requirements. Participants who
completed 4 weeks of WM training
+demonstrated significant improvements on measures of temporary
memory. These WM training benefits generalized to performance on the
Stroop task and, in a novel finding, promoted significant increases in
reading
+comprehension. The results are discussed in relation to the
hypothesis that WM training affects domain-general attention control
mechanisms and can thereby elicit far-reaching cognitive benefits.
Implications include the use of WM training as a general tool for
enhancing important cognitive skills."
+
+While WM training yielded many valuable benefits such as
increased reading comprehension, it did not improve IQ as measured by
an unspeeded Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) IQ test;
+
+> "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."
+

Sun Aug 15 08:54:10 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* +local copy of seidler
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 464
-["Cognitive Training As An Intervention To Improve Driving
Ability In The Older
Adult"](http://m-castl.org/files/2010-01SeidlerReport.pdf), a
[technical report](!Wikipedia) by a group which includes Susanne
Jaeggi, studied the effect of DNB on the driving ability of
younger/older adults. As part of the before/after test battery, a
Raven's was administered:
+["Cognitive Training As An Intervention To Improve Driving
Ability In The Older
Adult"](http://m-castl.org/files/2010-01SeidlerReport.pdf) ([local
copy](docs/seidler2010.pdf)), a [technical report](!Wikipedia) by a
group which includes Susanne Jaeggi, studied the effect of DNB on the
driving ability of younger/older adults. As part of the before/after
test battery, a Raven's was administered:

Sun Aug 15 08:42:28 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* ln reading span
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 478
-["Improvement in working memory is not related to increased
intelligence scores"](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.06.008)
([full text](docs/colom2010.pdf)) trained 173 students on WM tasks
(such as reading span) with randomized difficulties, and found no
linked IQ improvement; the IQ tests were "the Advanced Progressive
Matrices Test (APM) along with the abstract reasoning (DAT-AR), verbal
reasoning (DAT-VR), and spatial relations (DAT-SR) subtests from the
Differential Aptitude Test Battery". None were speeded as in Jaeggi
2008. Abstract:
+["Improvement in working memory is not related to increased
intelligence scores"](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.06.008)
([full text](docs/colom2010.pdf)) trained 173 students on WM tasks
(such as the [reading span task](!Wikipedia)) with randomized
difficulties, and found no linked IQ improvement; the IQ tests were
"the Advanced Progressive Matrices Test (APM) along with the abstract
reasoning (DAT-AR), verbal reasoning (DAT-VR), and spatial relations
(DAT-SR) subtests from the Differential Aptitude Test Battery". None
were speeded as in Jaeggi 2008. Abstract:

Sun Aug 15 08:41:40 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* forgot an obvious criticism. make them a list
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 482
-Commentators on the [ML
discussion](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_frm/thread/dfefba647545fb57)
criticized the study for apparently little training time on the WM
tasks (3 sessions over weeks, each of unclear duration), the
randomization of difficulty as opposed to DNB's adaptiveness, the
large increase in scores on the WM tasks over the 3 sessions
(suggesting growing familiarity than real challenge & growth), and the
statistical observation that if IQ gains were linear with training and
started small then 173 participants is not enough to observe with
confidence any improvements.
+Commentators on the [ML
discussion](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_frm/thread/dfefba647545fb57)
criticized the study for:
+
+1. Not using DNB itself
+2. apparently little training time on the WM tasks (3 sessions
over weeks, each of unclear duration)
+3. the randomization of difficulty (as opposed to DNB's adaptiveness)
+4. the large increase in scores on the WM tasks over the 3
sessions (suggesting growing familiarity than real challenge & growth)
+5. and the statistical observation that if IQ gains were linear
with training and started small then 173 participants is not enough to
observe with confidence any improvements.

Sun Aug 15 08:40:20 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* forgot paren
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 478
-["Improvement in working memory is not related to increased
intelligence scores"](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.06.008)
([full text](docs/colom2010.pdf) trained 173 students on WM tasks
(such as reading span) with randomized difficulties, and found no
linked IQ improvement; the IQ tests were "the Advanced Progressive
Matrices Test (APM) along with the abstract reasoning (DAT-AR), verbal
reasoning (DAT-VR), and spatial relations (DAT-SR) subtests from the
Differential Aptitude Test Battery". None were speeded as in Jaeggi
2008. Abstract:
+["Improvement in working memory is not related to increased
intelligence scores"](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.06.008)
([full text](docs/colom2010.pdf)) trained 173 students on WM tasks
(such as reading span) with randomized difficulties, and found no
linked IQ improvement; the IQ tests were "the Advanced Progressive
Matrices Test (APM) along with the abstract reasoning (DAT-AR), verbal
reasoning (DAT-VR), and spatial relations (DAT-SR) subtests from the
Differential Aptitude Test Battery". None were speeded as in Jaeggi
2008. Abstract:

Sun Aug 15 08:39:57 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* +section on colom 2010
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 434
-## Criticism of Jaeggi 2008
+## Criticism
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 436
-### Moody 2009
+### Moody 2009 (re: Jaeggi 2008)
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 476
+### Colom 2010
+
+["Improvement in working memory is not related to increased
intelligence scores"](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.06.008)
([full text](docs/colom2010.pdf) trained 173 students on WM tasks
(such as reading span) with randomized difficulties, and found no
linked IQ improvement; the IQ tests were "the Advanced Progressive
Matrices Test (APM) along with the abstract reasoning (DAT-AR), verbal
reasoning (DAT-VR), and spatial relations (DAT-SR) subtests from the
Differential Aptitude Test Battery". None were speeded as in Jaeggi
2008. Abstract:
+
+> "The acknowledged high relationship between working memory and


intelligence suggests common underlying cognitive mechanisms and,
perhaps, shared biological substrates. If this is the case,
improvement in working memory by repeated exposure to challenging span
tasks might be reflected in increased intelligence scores. Here we
report a study in which 288 university undergraduates completed the
odd numbered items of four intelligence tests on time 1 and the even
numbered items of the same tests one month later (time 2). In between,
173 participants completed three sessions, separated by exactly one
week, comprising verbal, numerical, and spatial short-term memory
(STM) and working memory (WMC) tasks imposing high processing demands

(STM\e2\80\93WMC group). 115 participants also completed three


sessions, separated by exactly one week, but comprising verbal,
numerical, and spatial simple speed tasks (processing speed, PS, and
attention, ATT) with very low processing demands (PS-ATT group). The
main finding reveals increased scores from the pre-test to the
post-test intelligence session (more than half a standard deviation on
average). However, there was no differential improvement on
intelligence between the STM-WMC and PS-ATT groups."

+
+Commentators on the [ML
discussion](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_frm/thread/dfefba647545fb57)
criticized the study for apparently little training time on the WM
tasks (3 sessions over weeks, each of unclear duration), the
randomization of difficulty as opposed to DNB's adaptiveness, the
large increase in scores on the WM tasks over the 3 sessions
(suggesting growing familiarity than real challenge & growth), and the
statistical observation that if IQ gains were linear with training and
started small then 173 participants is not enough to observe with
confidence any improvements.
+

Wed Aug 11 00:17:19 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* ln break lasting year
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 135
-Multiple group members have pointed to long gaps in their
training, sometimes multiple months, which did not change their scores
significantly (immediately after the break, scores may dip a level or
a few percent in accuracy, but quickly rises to the old level). This
anecdotal evidence is supported by at least one [WM-training
study](http://www.casl.umd.edu/node/1331):
+Multiple group members have pointed to long gaps in their
training, sometimes multiple months up to [a
year](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/tree/browse_frm/thread/80613920c0fbd422/18f2a024cd8f87e8?rnum=31&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fbrain-training%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F80613920c0fbd422%2Fb960c61b9e515755%3Ftvc%3D1%26#doc_e87c3f795821ac64),
which did not change their scores significantly (immediately after the
break, scores may dip a level or a few percent in accuracy, but
quickly rises to the old level). This anecdotal evidence is supported
by at least one [WM-training
study](http://www.casl.umd.edu/node/1331):

Fri Aug 6 01:14:21 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* training gains durable
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 131
+## Do breaks undo my work?
+
+Some people have wondered if not n-backing for a day/week/month
or other extended period undoes all their hard work, and hence
n-backing may not be useful in the long-term.
+
+Multiple group members have pointed to long gaps in their
training, sometimes multiple months, which did not change their scores
significantly (immediately after the break, scores may dip a level or
a few percent in accuracy, but quickly rises to the old level). This
anecdotal evidence is supported by at least one [WM-training
study](http://www.casl.umd.edu/node/1331):
+
+> "Figure 1b illustrates the degree to which training transferred
to an ostensibly different (and untrained) measure of verbal working
memory compared to a no-contact control group. Not only did training
significantly increase verbal working memory, but these gains
persisted 3 months following the cessation of training!"
+

Sun Jul 18 08:47:25 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* +milestones IQ results
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 256
+[milestones](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/7e859b3a7bfeb0d8):
+
+> "I do actually have gains to report on the "Advanced Culture
Fair Test" found on iqcomparisonsite.com that I just took today.
Facts: I scored 29 raw (out of 36) IQ 146 or 99.9%ile, compared to my
130 or 98%ile raw 21 that I scored when I took the test over a year
ago. $
+>
+> ...
+>
+> For comparison to other fluid measures, this result is 3 points
higher than my Get-gamma score and 2 points higher than my GIGI
certified and 13 points higher than my iqtestdk result which lands in
the same place
+every time I take it (last time I took it was less than a month
ago). My current DNB level averages 8+ over multiple (10-20)
sessions."
+

Sun Jul 18 08:44:31 EDT 2010 gwern <gwe...@gmail.com>
* ln new IQ test
hunk ./N-back\32\FAQ.page 173
+- ["IQ Comparison Site Advanced Culture Fair IQ
Test"](http://iqcomparisonsite.com/)

--
gwern

Pontus Granström

unread,
Aug 17, 2010, 4:29:24 PM8/17/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Take a look in the files section, there's an article there that summarizes various research. I use it for training, meditation and sleep.

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Book Alcohol <plast...@live.com.au> wrote:
Pontus,
 
Does "brain wave entertainment" have any scientific validity? If so, is it strong and in what area is it strong?
 
Thanks,
 
likeprestige
 

Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:08:45 +0200

Subject: Re: Improvement in working memory is not related to increased intelligence scores

kriegerlie

unread,
Aug 18, 2010, 7:16:42 AM8/18/10
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
which article would this be?

On Aug 17, 9:29 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Take a look in the files section, there's an article there that summarizes
> various research. I use it for training, meditation and sleep.
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Book Alcohol <plastic...@live.com.au>wrote:
>
>
>
> >  Pontus,
>
> > Does "brain wave entertainment" have any scientific validity? If so, is it
> > strong and in what area is it strong?
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > likeprestige
>
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:08:45 +0200
>
> > Subject: Re: Improvement in working memory is not related to increased
> > intelligence scores
> > From: lepon...@gmail.com
>
> > To: brain-t...@googlegroups.com
>
> > Sorry, #2 predicts SPM score! It might also be interesting to have a
> > section for brainwave entrainment.
>
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Yes great FAQ! Here's a list on what I would like to include
>
> > 1. Acute hypoglycemia impairs nonverbal intelligence. *Shows the
> > importance of bloodsugar levels / WM for performance on Gf-tests.*
> > 2. Do working memory and susceptibility to interference predict individual
> > differences in fluid intelligence? *Shows that classical WMC predicts
> > RAPM-score.*
> > 3. Brain networks for working memory and factors of intelligence assessed
> > in males and females with fMRI and DTI. *Shows that n-back indeed overlaps
> > with Gf.
> > *
>
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Book Alcohol <plastic...@live.com.au>wrote:
>
> > Gwern,
>
> > Think you are doing a great job with the FAQ, let me know if you would ever
> > like any help!
>
> > Regards,
>
> > likeprestige
>
> > > From: gwe...@gmail.com
> > > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:56:02 -0400
> > > Subject: Re: Improvement in working memory is not related to increased
> > intelligence scores
>
> >    1. > To: brain-t...@googlegroups.com
>
> > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Is the gabor study flagged as fake? Otherwise it might be worth to add
> > that
> > > > in favor of dnb training.
>
> > > Hm? Oh, no. I just forgot about it completely. I've added a quick
> > > section on it
> >http://community.haskell.org/~gwern/static/N-back%20FAQ.html#qiu-2009<http://community.haskell.org/%7Egwern/static/N-back%20FAQ.html#qiu-2009>
> > > since no one else seems to regard it as suspicious and I don't have
> > > any smoking guns that would make me feel justified in omitting it
> > > entirely.
>
> > > --
> > > gwern
>
> > > --
> > > 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<brain-training%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-t...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%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-t...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%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-t...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%2Bunsubscribe@go oglegroups.com>
> > .

Pontus Granström

unread,
Aug 18, 2010, 7:53:52 AM8/18/10
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
brain wave entrainment and WISC and brainwave entrainment, sort by date and you'll find them in the top ten.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages