Higher working memory or higher inhibition?
319 views
Skip to first unread message
negatron
Jul 20, 2009, 10:21:28 PM7/20/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
A thought just occurred to me. Perhaps the training does not increase
working memory but rather increases inhibition through which more
working memory is available for the assigned task. Maybe this has
already been confirmed or refuted. If true, the training could have
adverse consequences. Cognitive tunnel vision in a manner of speaking.
Perhaps people in creative fields could shed some light on whether
training has had an impact, positive or negative, in their ability
to... well, be creative.
working memory but rather increases inhibition through which more
working memory is available for the assigned task. Maybe this has
already been confirmed or refuted. If true, the training could have
adverse consequences. Cognitive tunnel vision in a manner of speaking.
Perhaps people in creative fields could shed some light on whether
training has had an impact, positive or negative, in their ability
to... well, be creative.
Gwern Branwen
Jul 20, 2009, 10:29:19 PM7/20/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Nobody's experience reports I've collected in my FAQ have reported
feeling *less* creative; and there's one mention specifically of
performing better on creative tasks.
(There's now a HTML version of my FAQ at
http://code.haskell.org/~gwern/static/N-back%20FAQ.html if anyone
hasn't read it yet. :)
--
gwern
Mike L.
Jul 21, 2009, 1:39:02 AM7/21/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Wow Gwern, kudos on that faq.
On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (There's now a HTML version of my FAQ athttp://code.haskell.org/~gwern/static/N-back%20FAQ.htmlif anyone
On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Vlad
Jul 21, 2009, 8:53:43 AM7/21/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Negatron, you're intuitively right - there are few theories how WM
works, and one of the most explaining is, that WM and attention are
tied closely together (Ash always emphasizes this and he is right :).
This should work through the fact, that higher WM means more sources
for inhibition of distraction. So, the more WM, the better you can
concentrate. They tested this with coctail party effect: in general,
only 33% of persons catch their name from irrelevant background noise,
while concentrating on some task. Now they found, that only 20% of
high WM people catched their name, but 65% of low WM. On the other
side, contemporary researches sometimes differ between WM, STM,
primary / secondary WM, even LTM... But the point is, attention works
at least partly as a filter, and it gets better with higher WM.
Now the issue with creativity. I find this interesting, because I
think somebody here worried already about being subjectively less
creative than before BW training, and I got this feeling few times
too. But first, what is creativity? Is it present only in face of a
problem? Does it need to be appropriate? Do we mean here divergent
thinking, or the ability to produce quality abstract paintings? One
thing is for sure: creativity has not one and only source, or quality.
SO, even if we were perfectly able to block any distractions when
concentrating, this does not mean we block our main stream of
creativity. You can be creative after deciding to do so to, not just
spontaneously - in your brain there are already myriads of concepts,
which you can combine. Every creator must deeply concentrate on his
work. Maybe there are different kinds of creativity: "ADHD"
creativity, meaningful creativity, brainstorming creativity,
appreciation of art, and so on.
Btw after training dnb, I got this interest in art - I downloaded lots
of classical and other artistic pictures (never before), and really
enjoyed choosing which I like. Or have you ever seen "the hours"? I
fell in love with that movie :) and even started to read things from
virginia woolf - and she was pure, concentrated, sensual creativity!
If dnb changes your memory, your attention, maybe your intelligtence
(in a positive way), it changes your personality too. This means your
creativity STYLE could change too... I would agree with that to some
extent, and find this change pleasurable. So definitely no inner child
loosing here! :)
Last but not least, there was this research "Relationship of
intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students", which
I studied because of this today, and they found *positive* correlation
IQ vs verbal and figural creative processes (fluency, flexibility,
object designing, specific traits, insight...). And this mild
correlation (of 0.3 - 0.5), did not differ for different IQ levels
(higher IQs had mild higher creativity, lower IQs had mild lower
creativity - always mild relationship, so exceptions too, but in
general more IQ meant more creativity).
Well, how do you feel / think about this now? :)
works, and one of the most explaining is, that WM and attention are
tied closely together (Ash always emphasizes this and he is right :).
This should work through the fact, that higher WM means more sources
for inhibition of distraction. So, the more WM, the better you can
concentrate. They tested this with coctail party effect: in general,
only 33% of persons catch their name from irrelevant background noise,
while concentrating on some task. Now they found, that only 20% of
high WM people catched their name, but 65% of low WM. On the other
side, contemporary researches sometimes differ between WM, STM,
primary / secondary WM, even LTM... But the point is, attention works
at least partly as a filter, and it gets better with higher WM.
Now the issue with creativity. I find this interesting, because I
think somebody here worried already about being subjectively less
creative than before BW training, and I got this feeling few times
too. But first, what is creativity? Is it present only in face of a
problem? Does it need to be appropriate? Do we mean here divergent
thinking, or the ability to produce quality abstract paintings? One
thing is for sure: creativity has not one and only source, or quality.
SO, even if we were perfectly able to block any distractions when
concentrating, this does not mean we block our main stream of
creativity. You can be creative after deciding to do so to, not just
spontaneously - in your brain there are already myriads of concepts,
which you can combine. Every creator must deeply concentrate on his
work. Maybe there are different kinds of creativity: "ADHD"
creativity, meaningful creativity, brainstorming creativity,
appreciation of art, and so on.
Btw after training dnb, I got this interest in art - I downloaded lots
of classical and other artistic pictures (never before), and really
enjoyed choosing which I like. Or have you ever seen "the hours"? I
fell in love with that movie :) and even started to read things from
virginia woolf - and she was pure, concentrated, sensual creativity!
If dnb changes your memory, your attention, maybe your intelligtence
(in a positive way), it changes your personality too. This means your
creativity STYLE could change too... I would agree with that to some
extent, and find this change pleasurable. So definitely no inner child
loosing here! :)
Last but not least, there was this research "Relationship of
intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students", which
I studied because of this today, and they found *positive* correlation
IQ vs verbal and figural creative processes (fluency, flexibility,
object designing, specific traits, insight...). And this mild
correlation (of 0.3 - 0.5), did not differ for different IQ levels
(higher IQs had mild higher creativity, lower IQs had mild lower
creativity - always mild relationship, so exceptions too, but in
general more IQ meant more creativity).
Well, how do you feel / think about this now? :)
negatron
Jul 21, 2009, 9:19:42 AM7/21/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
The research you mention seems to correlate creativity with IQ, which
from a certain study I recall showed marginal change as you say. But
that same study also showed dramatically higher creativity in low
inhibition individuals with a high IQ.
As far as I know it is not difficult to test latent inhibition. A
study should be able to measure this with n-back training. If it's
merely the inhibition balance that is tilted towards concentration
then you are making a compromise rather than developing any form of
superior function. If working memory is increased without altering
inhibition, this too would improve concentration but without such side-
effects. The WM study you mentioned at the top appears to indicate
high inhibition not high working memory. low WM should not give people
any such perceptual benefit. This is is a clear consequence of reduced
inhibition not a working memory deficit.
The distinction appears to be inadequate in these studies and in the
above case only suggests a shift in cognitive priorities rather than
capacities. This is why I find it important to figure out whether n-
back is affecting capacities or priorities, or perhaps both.
from a certain study I recall showed marginal change as you say. But
that same study also showed dramatically higher creativity in low
inhibition individuals with a high IQ.
As far as I know it is not difficult to test latent inhibition. A
study should be able to measure this with n-back training. If it's
merely the inhibition balance that is tilted towards concentration
then you are making a compromise rather than developing any form of
superior function. If working memory is increased without altering
inhibition, this too would improve concentration but without such side-
effects. The WM study you mentioned at the top appears to indicate
high inhibition not high working memory. low WM should not give people
any such perceptual benefit. This is is a clear consequence of reduced
inhibition not a working memory deficit.
The distinction appears to be inadequate in these studies and in the
above case only suggests a shift in cognitive priorities rather than
capacities. This is why I find it important to figure out whether n-
back is affecting capacities or priorities, or perhaps both.
Vlad
Jul 21, 2009, 1:03:35 PM7/21/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Probably I was not clear enough: instructions in the study were
"concentrate on repeating what you hear" (it's complex task, you cant
allow yourself to be distracted). So everybody WANTED to inhibit
irrelevant stimuli, and high WM people (as tested by ospan before)
were the most succesfull ones. What you considered as "perceptual
benefit", was actually distraction from given task, followed
immediately by errors.
I dont see "ability to concentrate" (inhibit irrelevant stimuli) as
opposed to "ability to be creative". Depends on what you choose to do
in the moment.
negatron
Jul 21, 2009, 4:11:34 PM7/21/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
>I dont see "ability to concentrate" (inhibit irrelevant stimuli) as
>opposed to "ability to be creative".
But it is. It's not my saying so, I don't recall the exact research I
>opposed to "ability to be creative".
read but there are numerous pages for creativity + latent inhibition.
If the training is increasing inhibition rather than increasing
working memory, it appears to necessitate a decreased capacity in
creative thinking in favor of analytical.
George Avazzy
Jul 21, 2009, 5:53:13 PM7/21/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
The way I look at this is that dual n-back trains two things (both subsets of the general term "working memory"):
1. latent inhibition and the ability to inhibit irrelevant stimuli (see below Wikipedia excerpt);
2. short-term memory capacity
From Wikipedia on inhibiting irrelevant stimuli: "For example, when the task is to remember a list of 7 words in their order, we need to start recall with the first word. While trying to retrieve the first word, the second word, which is represented in close proximity, is accidentally retrieved as well, and the two compete for being recalled. Errors in serial recall tasks are often confusions of neighboring items on a memory list (so-called transpositions), showing that retrieval competition plays a role in limiting our ability to recall lists in order, and probably also in other working memory tasks."
In order for creativity to be enhanced, I would think that you would want to affect the above two things like this:
1. allow all stimuli to be processed (decrease inhibition of "irrelevant stimuli")
2. Increase short-term memory capacity
Creativity is the ability to create new associations between concepts. The more details about each concept you can hold in your mind (the greater your cognitive capacity) the more likely you will create a useful & appropriate association; hyperfocus (high inhibition) would decrease the probability of making an association.
I would want to train in a way that increases my cognitive capacity but does not inhibit my ability to create connections. How do we achieve this? I don't know. I suspect balance is key. Popular but unproven methods like image streaming, random juxtaposition, lateral thinking, and trying to solve a wicked problem may help.
1. latent inhibition and the ability to inhibit irrelevant stimuli (see below Wikipedia excerpt);
2. short-term memory capacity
From Wikipedia on inhibiting irrelevant stimuli: "For example, when the task is to remember a list of 7 words in their order, we need to start recall with the first word. While trying to retrieve the first word, the second word, which is represented in close proximity, is accidentally retrieved as well, and the two compete for being recalled. Errors in serial recall tasks are often confusions of neighboring items on a memory list (so-called transpositions), showing that retrieval competition plays a role in limiting our ability to recall lists in order, and probably also in other working memory tasks."
In order for creativity to be enhanced, I would think that you would want to affect the above two things like this:
1. allow all stimuli to be processed (decrease inhibition of "irrelevant stimuli")
2. Increase short-term memory capacity
Creativity is the ability to create new associations between concepts. The more details about each concept you can hold in your mind (the greater your cognitive capacity) the more likely you will create a useful & appropriate association; hyperfocus (high inhibition) would decrease the probability of making an association.
I would want to train in a way that increases my cognitive capacity but does not inhibit my ability to create connections. How do we achieve this? I don't know. I suspect balance is key. Popular but unproven methods like image streaming, random juxtaposition, lateral thinking, and trying to solve a wicked problem may help.
argumzio
Jul 21, 2009, 5:55:31 PM7/21/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
I have uploaded two documents relevant to the issue of latent
inhibition, creativity, and IQ. There is, naturally, more that can be
found online (also pointing to neuregulin 1 and its attendant effects
on creativity and schizophrenia), but I suppose these are sufficient
to indicate that there is something truly fascinating at work
pertaining to the subject within the human pallium.
But my initial estimation is that WM relates to a different matter,
not latent inhibition, namely, proactive interference. There are a
number of documents detailing how studies on WM capacity may have been
confounded by this. Here are two:
https://pal.utdallas.edu/pubs/publication/download/980
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/ericsson.long.html
Hopefully this can provide some direction for further discussion.
inhibition, creativity, and IQ. There is, naturally, more that can be
found online (also pointing to neuregulin 1 and its attendant effects
on creativity and schizophrenia), but I suppose these are sufficient
to indicate that there is something truly fascinating at work
pertaining to the subject within the human pallium.
But my initial estimation is that WM relates to a different matter,
not latent inhibition, namely, proactive interference. There are a
number of documents detailing how studies on WM capacity may have been
confounded by this. Here are two:
https://pal.utdallas.edu/pubs/publication/download/980
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/ericsson.long.html
Hopefully this can provide some direction for further discussion.
Vlad
Jul 21, 2009, 7:18:30 PM7/21/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
negatron ok - to be honest, I found this today:
"creative and methodical solvers exhibited different activity in areas
of the brain that process visual information. The pattern of "alpha"
and "beta" brainwaves in creative solvers was consistent with diffuse
rather than focused visual attention. This may allow creative
individuals to broadly sample the environment for experiences that can
trigger remote associations to produce an Aha! Moment. For example, a
glimpse of an advertisement on a billboard or a word spoken in an
overheard conversation could spark an association that leads to a
solution. In contrast, the more focused attention of methodical
solvers reduces their distractibility, allowing them to effectively
solve problems for which the solution strategy is already known, as
would be the case for balancing a checkbook or baking a cake using a
known recipe."
so this speaks in favor of your hypothesis (actually there should be
no problem to check creativity in next research related to n-back).
Just one more reminder - in the realm of actual terms in science, you
cant raise WM or inhibition independently on each other - their are
related (to some level).
"creative and methodical solvers exhibited different activity in areas
of the brain that process visual information. The pattern of "alpha"
and "beta" brainwaves in creative solvers was consistent with diffuse
rather than focused visual attention. This may allow creative
individuals to broadly sample the environment for experiences that can
trigger remote associations to produce an Aha! Moment. For example, a
glimpse of an advertisement on a billboard or a word spoken in an
overheard conversation could spark an association that leads to a
solution. In contrast, the more focused attention of methodical
solvers reduces their distractibility, allowing them to effectively
solve problems for which the solution strategy is already known, as
would be the case for balancing a checkbook or baking a cake using a
known recipe."
so this speaks in favor of your hypothesis (actually there should be
no problem to check creativity in next research related to n-back).
Just one more reminder - in the realm of actual terms in science, you
cant raise WM or inhibition independently on each other - their are
related (to some level).
Vlad
Jul 21, 2009, 7:43:41 PM7/21/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
george what you say (and your two conclusions) sounds consistent. But
even if creativity and focus were strictly opposite (which is nearly
impossible), I think we cannot use our creativity because of our bad
focus. And in problem-solving area, most of the time, the solution is
1% purest inspiration, and then 99% of focused putting things or
thoughs together, fail-testing, thinking again... I think puuurest
inspiration is a bit over-valued (I said a bit :).
even if creativity and focus were strictly opposite (which is nearly
impossible), I think we cannot use our creativity because of our bad
focus. And in problem-solving area, most of the time, the solution is
1% purest inspiration, and then 99% of focused putting things or
thoughs together, fail-testing, thinking again... I think puuurest
inspiration is a bit over-valued (I said a bit :).
Iron
Jul 21, 2009, 8:01:28 PM7/21/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Vlad, I strangely enough found the same study yesterday, but I came to
a different conclusion than you did. I took it to mean that you can
either have a diffused or focused attention style, but that it only
dictated what information comes into your awareness. Your working
memory is then employed to determine which of these you retain.
Could this 'diffuse' attentional style be what is referred to as
"mindfulness"? Would practicing mindfulness meditation in conjugation
with DNB result in lowered inhibition while also raising WM? I
remember reading in a study a while back that monks who had practiced
a lot of mindfulness meditation could not filter out the sound of a
dripping faucet the way normal controls could. Could this be an
indication of lowering latent inhibition?
a different conclusion than you did. I took it to mean that you can
either have a diffused or focused attention style, but that it only
dictated what information comes into your awareness. Your working
memory is then employed to determine which of these you retain.
Could this 'diffuse' attentional style be what is referred to as
"mindfulness"? Would practicing mindfulness meditation in conjugation
with DNB result in lowered inhibition while also raising WM? I
remember reading in a study a while back that monks who had practiced
a lot of mindfulness meditation could not filter out the sound of a
dripping faucet the way normal controls could. Could this be an
indication of lowering latent inhibition?
Vlad
Jul 21, 2009, 8:09:13 PM7/21/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
argumzio thanks for the articles. First of them says, that WM and
inhibition processes are sufficiently separated (researches see aging
as a fail of inhibition, not WM). But another research see WM and
inhitory processes as quite related. We must probably wait for more
specific research.
The second one was already linked here somewhere (and because it's
huge, I only read a summary :). From the summary I dont see the point
- why label long-term memory as "working"? You cant think in past -
you can only work with historic content tight now. So the static
content is called long term memory, from which you grab few key ideas
(even with wide meaning), and work with them right now - in your short
term, WORKING, memory. Then maybe long-term memory is actualized, but
the work really seems to be done short-term.
inhibition processes are sufficiently separated (researches see aging
as a fail of inhibition, not WM). But another research see WM and
inhitory processes as quite related. We must probably wait for more
specific research.
The second one was already linked here somewhere (and because it's
huge, I only read a summary :). From the summary I dont see the point
- why label long-term memory as "working"? You cant think in past -
you can only work with historic content tight now. So the static
content is called long term memory, from which you grab few key ideas
(even with wide meaning), and work with them right now - in your short
term, WORKING, memory. Then maybe long-term memory is actualized, but
the work really seems to be done short-term.
Curtis Warren
Jul 21, 2009, 8:09:50 PM7/21/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
That was probably only when they were meditating. If you couldn't weed
out irrelevant stimuli, you wouldn't be able to function as a human
being.
Rick Handel
Jul 21, 2009, 8:39:31 PM7/21/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Hi All,
I was stuck at dual-6-back in default mode for about 4 or 5 weeks. I
figured that was it for me, but yesterday I made it to dual-7-back! Today,
I easily did it again and just missed making it to 8-back on a couple of
trials! I guess it's possible to continue to improve even after being stuck
at a certain level for an extended period of time (or at least this seems to
be true in my case).
Rick
Vlad
Jul 21, 2009, 8:41:52 PM7/21/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
iron - yes, that's sound reasonable. If we borrow this metaphore of
right/left hemisphere, then creativity comes from wide-associations in
right hemishepre. And what you do while meditating, is that, you dont
methodologically seek any though-content (you dont focus), but accept
your spontaneous ("wide") associations.
Interesting is, that you solve the hardest IQ tasks often by
"intuition" - od course it's a sophisticated guess, and you must focus
first... t can relate to consciouss / unconsiouss solving. If we have
a great method of stimulating focus (n-back), then maybe meditating
(accepting images without labelling) is good for "creativity". And
then image streaming for connecting the both(heh, it seems that ideal
would be n-back with your spontaneous images :)
I have one question: if n-back trains mainly focus, not creativity,
does somebody here experienced creative ideas right in the process of
n-backing? Because I do, quite often. Its this USABLE combination of
things / thoughs... I think you are are doomed to be creative any
second in your life - its just how well focused you are to make use of
it.
right/left hemisphere, then creativity comes from wide-associations in
right hemishepre. And what you do while meditating, is that, you dont
methodologically seek any though-content (you dont focus), but accept
your spontaneous ("wide") associations.
Interesting is, that you solve the hardest IQ tasks often by
"intuition" - od course it's a sophisticated guess, and you must focus
first... t can relate to consciouss / unconsiouss solving. If we have
a great method of stimulating focus (n-back), then maybe meditating
(accepting images without labelling) is good for "creativity". And
then image streaming for connecting the both(heh, it seems that ideal
would be n-back with your spontaneous images :)
I have one question: if n-back trains mainly focus, not creativity,
does somebody here experienced creative ideas right in the process of
n-backing? Because I do, quite often. Its this USABLE combination of
things / thoughs... I think you are are doomed to be creative any
second in your life - its just how well focused you are to make use of
it.
Gore Lando
Jul 22, 2009, 2:22:11 AM7/22/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
I assure you that writers, at least, by and large are not brain-damaged with no working memory to inhibit the awful godly flow of images and stimuli. No, they (the great ones anyway) have incredible, unbelievable will and focus when it comes to their work.
What's the worry here? If you're worried about sacrificing your creativity by working hard on something mental and training your focus, then perhaps you shouldn't be involved in a creative profession in the first place, as this sort of thinking with lead you precisely nowhere.
Instead I recommend spiking your dual-n-back sessions with low to moderate doses of LSD, which is a real hoot for lowering latent inhibition when you need somma dat mojo.
What's the worry here? If you're worried about sacrificing your creativity by working hard on something mental and training your focus, then perhaps you shouldn't be involved in a creative profession in the first place, as this sort of thinking with lead you precisely nowhere.
Instead I recommend spiking your dual-n-back sessions with low to moderate doses of LSD, which is a real hoot for lowering latent inhibition when you need somma dat mojo.
George Avazzy
Jul 22, 2009, 11:16:34 AM7/22/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Gore Lando <gore...@gmail.com> wrote:
I assure you that writers, at least, by and large are not brain-damaged with no working memory to inhibit the awful godly flow of images and stimuli. No, they (the great ones anyway) have incredible, unbelievable will and focus when it comes to their work.
What's the worry here? If you're worried about sacrificing your creativity by working hard on something mental and training your focus, then perhaps you shouldn't be involved in a creative profession in the first place, as this sort of thinking with lead you precisely nowhere.
Wouldn't we want to maximize focus & creativity? (It may be possible to increase both focus and creativity, but IIRC there is some evidence that training focus inhibits creativity; we would want training that wouldn't hinder either but improve both.)
Instead I recommend spiking your dual-n-back sessions with low to moderate doses of LSD, which is a real hoot for lowering latent inhibition when you need somma dat mojo.
I'll bite.
I seek to improve the quality of my life. I would never use LSD to improve my creativity for the same reason that I would never rely on nootropics to improve my cognitive performance. I always saw a few people around me who tried to get ahead academically by using some kid's ADHD medicine, but I noticed that those same people (about 5 from my high school) ended up being the same ones to party way too hard on the weekends, procrastinate, have power study sessions to make up for their lost time, and still end up worse off than I'm sure they could have been.
I'm not saying that LSD is going to cause me to become a junkie, but I do think that I would achieve a greater sense of satisfaction and experience a greater quality of life if I knew that I deserved all of the rewards that I got than if I relied on external chemicals.
argumzio
Jul 22, 2009, 12:51:35 PM7/22/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
>On Jul 22, 10:16 am, George Avazzy <georgeava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I seek to improve the quality of my life. I would never use LSD to improve
> my creativity for the same reason that I would never rely on nootropics to
> improve my cognitive performance. I always saw a few people around me who
> tried to get ahead academically by using some kid's ADHD medicine, but I
> noticed that those same people (about 5 from my high school) ended up being
> the same ones to party way too hard on the weekends, procrastinate, have
> power study sessions to make up for their lost time, and still end up worse
> off than I'm sure they could have been.
>
> I'm not saying that LSD is going to cause me to become a junkie, but I do
> think that I would achieve a greater sense of satisfaction and experience a
> greater quality of life if I knew that I deserved all of the rewards that I
> got than if I relied on external chemicals.
I'm going to gnaw on this one for a bit.
>
> I seek to improve the quality of my life. I would never use LSD to improve
> my creativity for the same reason that I would never rely on nootropics to
> improve my cognitive performance. I always saw a few people around me who
> tried to get ahead academically by using some kid's ADHD medicine, but I
> noticed that those same people (about 5 from my high school) ended up being
> the same ones to party way too hard on the weekends, procrastinate, have
> power study sessions to make up for their lost time, and still end up worse
> off than I'm sure they could have been.
>
> I'm not saying that LSD is going to cause me to become a junkie, but I do
> think that I would achieve a greater sense of satisfaction and experience a
> greater quality of life if I knew that I deserved all of the rewards that I
> got than if I relied on external chemicals.
It is this kind of statement that reveals a deep-seated unawareness
regarding the factors that allow your life to even continue. What am I
saying? One word: food.
Let me put this in a logical form:
If nootropics are cognition-enhancing drugs/supplements/etc., then
they are also external chemicals.
If external chemicals rob me of achieving a greater sense of
satisfaction and experience a greater quality of life precisely
because I wouldn't deserve all the rewards I had received by means of
them, then I shouldn't take them.
Nootropics are cognition-enhancing drugs/etc.; therefore, I should not
take them.
Similarly:
If many of the foods we eat are cognition-enhancing drugs/supplements/
etc., then they are also external chemicals.
If external chemicals rob me of achieving a greater sense of
satisfaction and experience a greater quality of life precisely
because I wouldn't deserve all the rewards I had received by means of
them, then I shouldn't take them.
Many of the foods we eat are cognition-enhancing drugs/etc.;
therefore, I shouldn't take them.
(Ancillary: If I don't eat many kinds of foods, then my health and
well-being are compromised.
I don't eat many kinds of foods; therefore, my health and well-being
are compromised.)
This is the sort of blind association that has been attached to
nootropics for far too long. By definition even, these are not things
that have negative side effects associated with them (or are very
minimal, like food), so you are ultimately depriving yourself of any
benefit that may be had by them. In any case, your logic would have
you suffer from malnutrition. I strongly suggest you think about this
issue with greater care, if you somehow believe everyday, humdrum food
is excluded from your categorization of "external chemicals" which
really makes little sense. We are walking, talking systems of chemical
interactions. Ignoring this reality based on the assumption that you
are a being wholly disconnected from the world around you will not
lead you into very serviceable territory.
I'm not advocating a deluge of nootropics, mind-altering drugs, and
what have you. I'm merely pointing out the flawed logic behind this
sort of thinking. These things cannot be written off and dismissed so
easily. And keep in mind many people are not going to buy into this
thinking and so avoid taking advantage of possible loopholes in their
neurochemistry.
Pheonoxia
Jul 22, 2009, 1:36:58 PM7/22/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
> I'll bite.
>
> I seek to improve the quality of my life. I would never use LSD to improve
> my creativity for the same reason that I would never rely on nootropics to
> improve my cognitive performance. I always saw a few people around me who
> tried to get ahead academically by using some kid's ADHD medicine, but I
> noticed that those same people (about 5 from my high school) ended up being
> the same ones to party way too hard on the weekends, procrastinate, have
> power study sessions to make up for their lost time, and still end up worse
> off than I'm sure they could have been.
>
> I'm not saying that LSD is going to cause me to become a junkie, but I do
> think that I would achieve a greater sense of satisfaction and experience a
> greater quality of life if I knew that I deserved all of the rewards that I
> got than if I relied on external chemicals.
I'll devour.
>
> I seek to improve the quality of my life. I would never use LSD to improve
> my creativity for the same reason that I would never rely on nootropics to
> improve my cognitive performance. I always saw a few people around me who
> tried to get ahead academically by using some kid's ADHD medicine, but I
> noticed that those same people (about 5 from my high school) ended up being
> the same ones to party way too hard on the weekends, procrastinate, have
> power study sessions to make up for their lost time, and still end up worse
> off than I'm sure they could have been.
>
> I'm not saying that LSD is going to cause me to become a junkie, but I do
> think that I would achieve a greater sense of satisfaction and experience a
> greater quality of life if I knew that I deserved all of the rewards that I
> got than if I relied on external chemicals.
First, those 5 kids didn't party hard because they took ADHD drugs for
performance. That's a cum hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy,
believing correlation equals causation. This is like saying "I know
five baseball players who chew tobacco, so I'd never play baseball."
They have nothing to do with each other. I'd bet those kids did much
better in school than they would have w/o the ADHD drugs and to
suggest otherwise makes you very ignorant of tons of data proving ADHD
drugs do improve grades.
LSD won't make you a junkie, for sure. It's not physically addictive
and is one of the safest illegal drugs on the planet. It's discovered,
a Swiss chemist, did it for most of his late life and lived to 104
years old. Satisfaction and your sense of well being are largely
neurological chemical reactions, not some arbitrary sense of what you
deserve.
I take you don't drink caffeine, do you?
Tim
Jul 22, 2009, 3:37:12 PM7/22/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
I think I've heard that Timothy Leary once did a study where he found
that the day after ingesting LSD, study participants increased their
iq scores by an average of 10%.
that the day after ingesting LSD, study participants increased their
iq scores by an average of 10%.
Vlad
Jul 22, 2009, 4:28:47 PM7/22/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
..yeah goreLando (no offense anybody :)
Vlad
Jul 22, 2009, 4:29:43 PM7/22/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
..now that's a textbook example of self-delusion! :)
George Avazzy
Jul 22, 2009, 5:16:28 PM7/22/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
I take you don't drink caffeine, do you?
I drink tea occasionally.
First, those 5 kids didn't party hard because they took ADHD drugs for
performance. That's a cum hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy,
believing correlation equals causation. This is like saying "I know
five baseball players who chew tobacco, so I'd never play baseball."
They have nothing to do with each other.
I can see where you're coming from. There is no way for me to prove that using ADHD drugs caused them to party harder on the weekends. It could be just as plausible that the same kind of people who use drugs to enhance their weekend fun (2 of them did cocaine) would be the same kind of people who would rely on drugs to enhance their cognition. And I don't doubt that ADHD meds improved their grades because there is plenty of evidence to support the amazing power of ADHD drugs.
What I am saying is that if I knew that I could cram twice as much before the day of a test, then I personally would see less of a reason to study at other times.
I'd bet those kids did much
better in school than they would have w/o the ADHD drugs and to
suggest otherwise makes you very ignorant of tons of data proving ADHD
drugs do improve grades.
And there's tons of data proving steroids give you bigger muscles and help you lose fat.
I'm not advocating a deluge of nootropics, mind-altering drugs, and
what have you. I'm merely pointing out the flawed logic behind this
sort of thinking. These things cannot be written off and dismissed so
easily. And keep in mind many people are not going to buy into this
thinking and so avoid taking advantage of possible loopholes in their
neurochemistry.
I think our definitions don't match. If I understand correctly, you're saying that if nootropics are external and food is external, then any condition that applies to nootropics must also apply to food; that if I oppose drugs because they are "external" then I must also oppose food in order to be consistent.
Similarly:
If many of the foods we eat are cognition-enhancing drugs/supplements/
etc., then they are also external chemicals.
If external chemicals rob me of achieving a greater sense of
satisfaction and experience a greater quality of life precisely
because I wouldn't deserve all the rewards I had received by means of
them, then I shouldn't take them.
Many of the foods we eat are cognition-enhancing drugs/etc.;
therefore, I shouldn't take them.
(Ancillary: If I don't eat many kinds of foods, then my health and
well-being are compromised.
I don't eat many kinds of foods; therefore, my health and well-being
are compromised.)
You can play a video game using only your own skill and complete it without any outside help. Some people choose to use walkthroughs. And others just use the cheat codes & get all the cool stuff. The positive outcome ("finishing" the game) for all three is the same. But in the first case, effort is highest and transfers the most skill to playing future games.
I see food as the gas for the engine and sleep is the maintenance. Caffeine would be like using high octane fuel. Using amphetamines/eugeroics would be like hitching the car to a high speed train.
argumzio
Jul 22, 2009, 5:37:49 PM7/22/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
It is not my argument I was presenting. To clarify, I was merely
presenting the argument that seemed to be indicated by your words at
the time. Your "external chemicals" as a classifier still makes little
sense, which is why I used it as a means to point out the messy
thinking that you employed.
Still, it seems you do not quite see the real sticking point in my
message. Forgive a tertiary source, but I think it is sufficient as a
furtherance of my point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic#Examples
Read the battery of nootropics. Does it not strike you as odd that
some foods have properties that have been classified as "nootropics"?
Even Vitamin B5 is there which is an essential nutrient. Cholinergics
are found in your egg yolks, which you likely enjoy (unless you are
vegan, but there are other sources). Ultimately, I think it is
impossible that you would be able to avoid all nootropics. Although it
is to be admitted that you now limit your wholesale rejection to
eugeroics and amphetamines, but this was not the case before.
In sum: food (= nootropics). You enhance your neurochemistry
essentially everyday, but it seems you concede this point with your
automobile metaphor. However, there is a degree to which your metaphor
breaks down: we are not machines, we are systems. We are the infinite
cascade that is the result of numerous feedback loops and potentials
that continually fashion and restore the anti-entropic forces that
through and through constitute us moment by moment.
Thus, you don't really avoid nootropics. In words you may think so,
but not in reality! ;-) This brings me back to my contention: all who
suppose to do so have not really understood what nootropics are.
presenting the argument that seemed to be indicated by your words at
the time. Your "external chemicals" as a classifier still makes little
sense, which is why I used it as a means to point out the messy
thinking that you employed.
Still, it seems you do not quite see the real sticking point in my
message. Forgive a tertiary source, but I think it is sufficient as a
furtherance of my point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic#Examples
Read the battery of nootropics. Does it not strike you as odd that
some foods have properties that have been classified as "nootropics"?
Even Vitamin B5 is there which is an essential nutrient. Cholinergics
are found in your egg yolks, which you likely enjoy (unless you are
vegan, but there are other sources). Ultimately, I think it is
impossible that you would be able to avoid all nootropics. Although it
is to be admitted that you now limit your wholesale rejection to
eugeroics and amphetamines, but this was not the case before.
In sum: food (= nootropics). You enhance your neurochemistry
essentially everyday, but it seems you concede this point with your
automobile metaphor. However, there is a degree to which your metaphor
breaks down: we are not machines, we are systems. We are the infinite
cascade that is the result of numerous feedback loops and potentials
that continually fashion and restore the anti-entropic forces that
through and through constitute us moment by moment.
Thus, you don't really avoid nootropics. In words you may think so,
but not in reality! ;-) This brings me back to my contention: all who
suppose to do so have not really understood what nootropics are.
Gwern Branwen
Jul 26, 2009, 10:26:29 AM7/26/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hash: SHA512
So I've been looking at the uploaded latent inhibition, and so far I'm
skeptical that any of them are useful for training.
For example, take the Kaufman study. The test of LI was
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkpsZ5QACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oL/WwCgikgmUhCmlunENB1c3eclfpKn
82wAoIfyUoAP5QjxW31z7g/YOm73uiNe
=0w8k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> "In the preexposed phase, participants were presented with
30 nonsense syllables, repeated 5 times with white noise bursts
superimposed randomly 31 times over the course of the recording.
Participants were instructed to determine how many times they
heard the third nonsense syllable (bim). Therefore, during this first
phase, the white noise bursts were irrelevant to the task.
> During the second task, the test phase, the same recording of the
syllables was replayed, but participants also watched yellow disks
appear one by one in rows on the computer monitor. This time, the
white noise bursts were relevant to the task: Each yellow disk
appeared before the white noise bursts. Participants were in-
structed to try to discover the auditory stimulus that caused the
yellow disks to appear (the correct answer is the white noise
bursts) and to write down their answer and raise their hand when
they thought that they had figured out the rule."
The second half sounds a *little* like games like Zendo*, but those
are known as inductive logic games, and I don't see how any
computer-generated secret rule would be nonlogical - so that doesn't
seem much like it'd help latent inhibition.
I also found this:
http://www.mshri.on.ca/roder/behavioural/protocols.html but their LI
test protocol seems infeasible to computerize & use on humans. :)
This paper http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/aphome/belfastli.pdf on testing
LI describes 8 or 9 tests of LI.
1. nonsense syllables/white-noise; seems to be the same as the first paper
2. variant of #1
3. Eye saccading tests; this seems infeasible as well, as none of us
have eye-trackers hooked up to our computers, and wouldn't be a good
training tool either
4.1. spatial working memory. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with
LI besides the generic WM/LI connexions?
4.2. Tower of London task. Ditto.
4.3. This one seems promising, as it looks eminently computerizable:
> "Attentional set shifting (Owen et al., 1991): Subjects are required to select one of two stimulus dimensions, when only one is correct. Initially, subjects are required to attend to different examples within the same dimension (intradimensional shift, IDS) and then to switch attention to the previously irrelevant dimension (extra-dimensional shift, EDS). At each stage, continuation to the next stage depends on six successive correct responses. The test is terminated automatically by the computer if the criterion is not met after 50 trials."
The citation is: Owen A M, Roberts A C, Polkey C E, Sahakian B J,
Robbins T W (1991) Extra-dimensional versus intra-dimensional shift
set shifting performance following frontal lobe excisions, temporal
lobe excisions or amygdalo-hippocampectomy in man. _Neuropsychologia_
29: 993–1006
Unfortunately, my library's copy of _Neuropsychologia_ only goes back
to '95; can anyone get this, or should I put in an ILL?
5. "Subjects were asked to generate as many words as possible
beginning with the letters F, A and S for 60 s each. They were
instructed not to produce numbers, proper nouns or the same word
with a different suffix."
This is a word generation task; it's perfectly computerizable - I
remember playing something like it at luminosity.com, although it
would let you have different suffixes. Although I wonder if it would
generalize, or would simply train verbal fluency?
6. inventory of 'akathasia'. Not a task.
7. inventory of 'subjective mood and sedation'. Ditto.
So of the tests I've found, only 1 looks like it might be an actual
computerizable test which isn't domain-specific.
* https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Zendo_%28game%29
--
gwern
argumzio
Jul 26, 2009, 3:19:12 PM7/26/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Gwern,
That is some interesting information. I could not find the article
(but someone else may), so ILL may be a well kept in mind.
I did some searching for a simple, and perhaps feasible, means of
assessing learned irrelevance and latent inhibition (as it runs out,
in terms of high levels of schizotypy).
Here is what I found:
Schmidt-Hansen M, Killcross A, Honey R. Latent inhibition, learned
irrelevance, and schizotypy: Assessing their relationship. Cognitive
Neuropsychiatry [serial online]. January 2009;14(1):11-29. Available
from: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Ipswich, MA.
Abstract found here: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a908692888~db=all~jumptype=rss
This seems computerizable, but this may require further clarification
possibly granted by the article for more detailed means of
implementation. I was not able to find the full article.
argumzio
> I also found this:http://www.mshri.on.ca/roder/behavioural/protocols.htmlbut their LI
That is some interesting information. I could not find the article
(but someone else may), so ILL may be a well kept in mind.
I did some searching for a simple, and perhaps feasible, means of
assessing learned irrelevance and latent inhibition (as it runs out,
in terms of high levels of schizotypy).
Here is what I found:
Schmidt-Hansen M, Killcross A, Honey R. Latent inhibition, learned
irrelevance, and schizotypy: Assessing their relationship. Cognitive
Neuropsychiatry [serial online]. January 2009;14(1):11-29. Available
from: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Ipswich, MA.
Abstract found here: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a908692888~db=all~jumptype=rss
This seems computerizable, but this may require further clarification
possibly granted by the article for more detailed means of
implementation. I was not able to find the full article.
argumzio
> test protocol seems infeasible to computerize & use on humans. :)
>
> This paperhttp://homepages.gold.ac.uk/aphome/belfastli.pdfon testing
>
jttoto
Jul 26, 2009, 9:17:05 PM7/26/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Somehow I don't think these tests prove that people with low LI are
bombarded with irrelevant stimuli.
A little anecdote. I've taken a proctored test in the past called the
BWAS like-dislike test, which is a quick way to gauge someone's
creativity. I scored in such a way that suggests I am creative, which
doesn't surprise me since bipolar runs in my family and I am into
drawing, music and other arts. I've never took a LI test ( I assume
people with low LI can find the pattern quicker after conditioning?
The study so far doesn't say but I haven't finished reading it), but
it is likely that my LI is low as well. (considering the link between
creativity and LI)
That being said, I don't feel like I am bombarded with stimuli at
all. In fact, I spend most of my free time daydreaming because I find
it far more interesting than the real world. But, when I am paying
attention to something I am more likely than the average person to
focus on it, no matter how bland, and perhaps even think of new uses
of the object, person, etc I am paying attention to (sometimes to
apply it to a fiction story, a drawing, etc.)
The problem with the automatic conclusion that people with low LI are
more easily distracted and are chained to the environment's stimuli
is this:
1) The participants are told to focus on the task. Therefore, it
could just as likely prove that people with low LI are less likely to
ignore stimuli when they feel it is relevant to the task at hand. (it
would be painfully obvious to anyone that the white noise is part of
the experiment. The person with low LI could simply be subconsciously
looking for a pattern) Perhaps all LI is, as others have suggested,
is the ability to not dismiss information or to abstractly find
relations. But, this doesn't prove that people low LI people can't
tune out information at will or are "easily distracted" as a
Livescience article pointed out. In fact, most of the creative artsy
types I know spend much of their time in lala land, which is essential
to art and would be very hard to do if they couldn't filter out their
environment.
2) It is just as plausible, based on the white noise test cited here,
that LI is simply the resistance to conditioning. This could mean a
variety of things.
argumzio
Jul 27, 2009, 12:58:22 AM7/27/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
If you daydream often, then it is likely on account of feeling that
the impinging world surrounding you does not suit what is in actuality
your LLI. Art is a kind of escape mechanism for those who find such
stimuli overwhelming to some extent ("dullness" comes to mind). The
way you describe yourself fits perfectly with some of the
characteristics found with LLI. You note that you can focus on items
more than the average person: this only affirms LLI. Feeling as though
you are bombarded by stimuli is not a necessary condition to have LLI.
Much of the literature indicates that those with higher than average
IQ can manage the additional inputs better than those with a lower IQ
score -- having greater executive control to manage the information
and novel associations. Distraction seems to come into play not in a
negative sense, but rather in a way that shows those with LLI find the
process of filtering out factors that have been learned to be
irrelevant to some particular task -- it does not necessarily mean
they find the task more difficult. It is not a matter of being
"chained to the environment's stimuli", at least according to my
understanding.
I, perhaps like you, have been deeply interested in the artistic
sphere and have been told I am quite creative when it comes to the
endeavors I wish to pursue; although it is to be admitted that I have
never taken a test that is the likes of BWAS. Even so, being
"creative" is a highly subjective sort of thing that brings with it
many qualifications. There are many levels at which the creative
process can be applied to a certain problem. For the average person,
it is quite possible that they are creative -- but the question then
comes: in what way are they creative while an artistic genius seems to
outshine them? But this isn't the time for such a question.
Whatever the case, in response:
1) What the participants feel ("these things are relevant") while
under the duress of such a task may only be a result of their LLI.
Even though white noise may be present during an experiment, it surely
would not imply that the participant would be capable of disregarding
it, however aware of its presence they may be. The process of
daydreaming, as it has been found, is merely the neutral, relaxed
state in which the brain does very little; creative moments have been
correlated with relaxed brain activity -- that is, alpha and theta
brainwaves. Daydreaming does not necessarily mean "tuning out"; it is
likely an unbridled fixation on presently irrelevant conditions as a
result of LLI. (For me, my daydreams occur as a result of such
fixations as they wash over me. Perhaps you will have observed this
yourself.)
2) LLI as a form of resistance to conditioning does not mean that
other attendant effects associated with it are null and void.
Considering the evolutionary value of LLI, it is apparent that in
times of stress, an organism capable of exploring new environments
regardless of their supposed relevance would have a greater chance of
survival than those that merely follow what has been "good enough",
especially if they are able to find more valuable and helpful
resources.
Saying all of this, it may at first seem too "reductionistic" to have
finally classified creative output of us human beings solely in terms
of LLI and high IQ. Even though this may seemingly result in a
denigration in its value, I do not think this is so. For me, it
provides a very interesting indication of what and how the process
takes place which is of primary importance to a full and accurate
understanding. I highly recommend that you don't base your opinion of
LI on experimental methods. There is a great deal of information out
there indicating that LI (including both low and high variants) is not
merely a useful classificatory elaboration granted by clever
scientists and researchers; it is more than likely a biological
reality that finds particular expression in the nervous system.
This brings to mind a similar item: "high sensitivity". Here's the
website in which you can find a self test check list: http://www.hsperson.com/
argumzio
the impinging world surrounding you does not suit what is in actuality
your LLI. Art is a kind of escape mechanism for those who find such
stimuli overwhelming to some extent ("dullness" comes to mind). The
way you describe yourself fits perfectly with some of the
characteristics found with LLI. You note that you can focus on items
more than the average person: this only affirms LLI. Feeling as though
you are bombarded by stimuli is not a necessary condition to have LLI.
Much of the literature indicates that those with higher than average
IQ can manage the additional inputs better than those with a lower IQ
score -- having greater executive control to manage the information
and novel associations. Distraction seems to come into play not in a
negative sense, but rather in a way that shows those with LLI find the
process of filtering out factors that have been learned to be
irrelevant to some particular task -- it does not necessarily mean
they find the task more difficult. It is not a matter of being
"chained to the environment's stimuli", at least according to my
understanding.
I, perhaps like you, have been deeply interested in the artistic
sphere and have been told I am quite creative when it comes to the
endeavors I wish to pursue; although it is to be admitted that I have
never taken a test that is the likes of BWAS. Even so, being
"creative" is a highly subjective sort of thing that brings with it
many qualifications. There are many levels at which the creative
process can be applied to a certain problem. For the average person,
it is quite possible that they are creative -- but the question then
comes: in what way are they creative while an artistic genius seems to
outshine them? But this isn't the time for such a question.
Whatever the case, in response:
1) What the participants feel ("these things are relevant") while
under the duress of such a task may only be a result of their LLI.
Even though white noise may be present during an experiment, it surely
would not imply that the participant would be capable of disregarding
it, however aware of its presence they may be. The process of
daydreaming, as it has been found, is merely the neutral, relaxed
state in which the brain does very little; creative moments have been
correlated with relaxed brain activity -- that is, alpha and theta
brainwaves. Daydreaming does not necessarily mean "tuning out"; it is
likely an unbridled fixation on presently irrelevant conditions as a
result of LLI. (For me, my daydreams occur as a result of such
fixations as they wash over me. Perhaps you will have observed this
yourself.)
2) LLI as a form of resistance to conditioning does not mean that
other attendant effects associated with it are null and void.
Considering the evolutionary value of LLI, it is apparent that in
times of stress, an organism capable of exploring new environments
regardless of their supposed relevance would have a greater chance of
survival than those that merely follow what has been "good enough",
especially if they are able to find more valuable and helpful
resources.
Saying all of this, it may at first seem too "reductionistic" to have
finally classified creative output of us human beings solely in terms
of LLI and high IQ. Even though this may seemingly result in a
denigration in its value, I do not think this is so. For me, it
provides a very interesting indication of what and how the process
takes place which is of primary importance to a full and accurate
understanding. I highly recommend that you don't base your opinion of
LI on experimental methods. There is a great deal of information out
there indicating that LI (including both low and high variants) is not
merely a useful classificatory elaboration granted by clever
scientists and researchers; it is more than likely a biological
reality that finds particular expression in the nervous system.
This brings to mind a similar item: "high sensitivity". Here's the
website in which you can find a self test check list: http://www.hsperson.com/
argumzio
Pheonoxia
Jul 27, 2009, 1:32:47 AM7/27/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Working memory training increases dopamine in the brain. According to
the National Institutes of Health, high dopamine levels lower latent
inhibition:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12610717
Therefore, training n-back lowers latent inhibition, which could
possibly increase creativity.
the National Institutes of Health, high dopamine levels lower latent
inhibition:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12610717
Therefore, training n-back lowers latent inhibition, which could
possibly increase creativity.
argumzio
Jul 27, 2009, 5:18:22 PM7/27/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
WM training leads to increased dopamine production? Could you direct
me to a study on that? As far as I recall, WM training leads only to
changes in receptor binding potential for D1 prefrontal and parietal
dopamine receptors (which could either be an increase or decrease).
See this article by Torkel Klingberg et al: http://www.klingberglab.se/pub/McNab2009.pdf
You have my thanks.
argumzio
me to a study on that? As far as I recall, WM training leads only to
changes in receptor binding potential for D1 prefrontal and parietal
dopamine receptors (which could either be an increase or decrease).
See this article by Torkel Klingberg et al: http://www.klingberglab.se/pub/McNab2009.pdf
You have my thanks.
argumzio
Pontus Granström
Jul 27, 2009, 5:26:18 PM7/27/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Dopamine is released when someone achomplish something that is positive it is a reward for natural accomplishments.
So Dual-n-back may very well release dopamine which is suspect case for some of us here.
So Dual-n-back may very well release dopamine which is suspect case for some of us here.
Pontus Granström
Jul 27, 2009, 5:34:31 PM7/27/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Dopamine receptors determine many factors in everything from Personality, motivation and so on.
argumzio
Jul 27, 2009, 5:40:51 PM7/27/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
negatron,
I was pleasantly surprised to have found an article by Torkel
Klingberg et al. that supports your thought: http://www.klingberglab.se/pub/McNab2008.pdf
Inhibition and WM seem to be closely linked, but not necessarily the
same process.
argumzio
On Jul 20, 9:21 pm, negatron <lokieff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A thought just occurred to me. Perhaps the training does not increase
> working memory but rather increases inhibition through which more
> working memory is available for the assigned task. Maybe this has
> already been confirmed or refuted. If true, the training could have
> adverse consequences. Cognitive tunnel vision in a manner of speaking.
>
> Perhaps people in creative fields could shed some light on whether
> training has had an impact, positive or negative, in their ability
> to... well, be creative.
I was pleasantly surprised to have found an article by Torkel
Klingberg et al. that supports your thought: http://www.klingberglab.se/pub/McNab2008.pdf
Inhibition and WM seem to be closely linked, but not necessarily the
same process.
argumzio
On Jul 20, 9:21 pm, negatron <lokieff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A thought just occurred to me. Perhaps the training does not increase
> working memory but rather increases inhibition through which more
> working memory is available for the assigned task. Maybe this has
> already been confirmed or refuted. If true, the training could have
> adverse consequences. Cognitive tunnel vision in a manner of speaking.
>
> Perhaps people in creative fields could shed some light on whether
> training has had an impact, positive or negative, in their ability
> to... well, be creative.
argumzio
Jul 27, 2009, 5:47:03 PM7/27/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Yes, dopamine release has been implicated in reward signaling and is
well known. However, what kinds of dopamine systems are activated in
the process besides D1 while trianing WM? Having "more dopamine" on
hand after a reward due to WM training would actually appear to lead
to diminished LI, especially when considering the whole dopamine
receptor subtypes: D1 to D5. There has to be a more detailed study on
this point, and I'm hoping Pheonoxia has it.
argumzio
On Jul 27, 4:26 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dopamine is released when someone achomplish something that is positive it
> is a reward for natural accomplishments.
> So Dual-n-back may very well release dopamine which is suspect case for some
> of us here.
>
well known. However, what kinds of dopamine systems are activated in
the process besides D1 while trianing WM? Having "more dopamine" on
hand after a reward due to WM training would actually appear to lead
to diminished LI, especially when considering the whole dopamine
receptor subtypes: D1 to D5. There has to be a more detailed study on
this point, and I'm hoping Pheonoxia has it.
argumzio
On Jul 27, 4:26 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dopamine is released when someone achomplish something that is positive it
> is a reward for natural accomplishments.
> So Dual-n-back may very well release dopamine which is suspect case for some
> of us here.
>
argumzio
Jul 27, 2009, 5:50:05 PM7/27/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Correction in wording of my previous message:
"...after a reward due to WM training would actually appear to lead to
diminished LI..." to "...after a reward due to WM training would not
appear to lead to diminished LI..."
Sorry about that. I'm usually more scrupulous and that would have led
to a misunderstanding.
argumzio
"...after a reward due to WM training would actually appear to lead to
diminished LI..." to "...after a reward due to WM training would not
appear to lead to diminished LI..."
Sorry about that. I'm usually more scrupulous and that would have led
to a misunderstanding.
argumzio
Pheonoxia
Jul 27, 2009, 6:05:33 PM7/27/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
You may be correct. WM "training leads to a change in the number of
dopamine D1 receptors in the cortex," which might validate my former
claim, but might not.
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=2069
This well-sourced link claims that WM training increases the density
of dopamine receptors.
http://stanford.wellsphere.com/brain-health-article/working-memory-training-changes-the-brain/692922
(Are dopamine receptors and dopamine the same thing?)
dopamine D1 receptors in the cortex," which might validate my former
claim, but might not.
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=2069
This well-sourced link claims that WM training increases the density
of dopamine receptors.
http://stanford.wellsphere.com/brain-health-article/working-memory-training-changes-the-brain/692922
(Are dopamine receptors and dopamine the same thing?)
Pontus Granström
Jul 27, 2009, 6:14:37 PM7/27/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
No they are not the same thing but they are connected. Dopamine is released as a reward. Lack of dopamine receptors may cause addication etc. I think that diffrent receptors bind to dopamine, but I am not sure.
argumzio
Jul 27, 2009, 8:25:54 PM7/27/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Pontus is correct in that they are not the same. Dopamine is a
neurotransmitter released by certain axon terminals of neurons.
Dopamine receptors are areas of neurons (such as on dendrites and the
cell body) that accept dopamine in a lock-and-key fashion. With
sufficient activation dopamine can serve to inhibit or lead to an
action potential by any particular neuron, provided that it shares a
connection with another which communicates with it using dopamine.
However, dopamine is not merely implicated reward signaling. Like many
neurotransmitters, it can play numerous roles, particularly when
mediated by other neurotransmitters. Wikipedia has a pretty good
article that describes this multidimensionality of the functions of
dopamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine
Following this, since this was simply your claim not backed by any
research, Pheonoxia, I would have to argue that changes in D1 receptor
density would not lead to an increase in dopamine as you had stated.
Therefore, WM training cannot (at this point) be said to lead to a
decrease in Latent Inhibition.
argumzio
On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Pheonoxia <b...@brockman.info> wrote:
> You may be correct. WM "training leads to a change in the number of
> dopamine D1 receptors in the cortex," which might validate my former
> claim, but might not.http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=2069
neurotransmitter released by certain axon terminals of neurons.
Dopamine receptors are areas of neurons (such as on dendrites and the
cell body) that accept dopamine in a lock-and-key fashion. With
sufficient activation dopamine can serve to inhibit or lead to an
action potential by any particular neuron, provided that it shares a
connection with another which communicates with it using dopamine.
However, dopamine is not merely implicated reward signaling. Like many
neurotransmitters, it can play numerous roles, particularly when
mediated by other neurotransmitters. Wikipedia has a pretty good
article that describes this multidimensionality of the functions of
dopamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine
Following this, since this was simply your claim not backed by any
research, Pheonoxia, I would have to argue that changes in D1 receptor
density would not lead to an increase in dopamine as you had stated.
Therefore, WM training cannot (at this point) be said to lead to a
decrease in Latent Inhibition.
argumzio
On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Pheonoxia <b...@brockman.info> wrote:
> You may be correct. WM "training leads to a change in the number of
> dopamine D1 receptors in the cortex," which might validate my former
>
> This well-sourced link claims that WM training increases the density
> of dopamine receptors.http://stanford.wellsphere.com/brain-health-article/working-memory-tr...
> This well-sourced link claims that WM training increases the density
Message has been deleted
Mike L.
Jul 27, 2009, 11:03:06 PM7/27/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Sorry for coming in a bit late to the conversation but is latent
inhibition supposed to be one's ability to filter out external
stimuli
in order to focus on one single stimulus more efficiently?
inhibition supposed to be one's ability to filter out external
stimuli
in order to focus on one single stimulus more efficiently?
Mike L.
Jul 28, 2009, 12:58:01 AM7/28/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
I ask because though i'm still quite efficient at filtering out
external stimuli, i find it more difficult to contain my thoughts to a
single aspect now whenever i'm working with something that requires my
sole attention , one, because i find that fewer things can truly
challenge me and those things that fail to do so are put on the
afterburner for things that are more complex in nature and don't
captivate me enough to get my fullest attention, and two, because i
notice things more.
As i'm walking on the street, for example, and talking with a friend
on the phone, it used to be that i could only do one thing at a time,
but now, as I catch a glimpse of something on the sidewalk, i begin to
think of it's composition, of how it came to get there, of all sorts
of things ALL THE WHILE i am still able to talk to my friend
comprehensibly and without inanity.
What i used to leave out because i simply could not handle the load i
now accept and process in a manner that is not detrimental to the
efficiency of any of the processes i might be undertaking at the time.
external stimuli, i find it more difficult to contain my thoughts to a
single aspect now whenever i'm working with something that requires my
sole attention , one, because i find that fewer things can truly
challenge me and those things that fail to do so are put on the
afterburner for things that are more complex in nature and don't
captivate me enough to get my fullest attention, and two, because i
notice things more.
As i'm walking on the street, for example, and talking with a friend
on the phone, it used to be that i could only do one thing at a time,
but now, as I catch a glimpse of something on the sidewalk, i begin to
think of it's composition, of how it came to get there, of all sorts
of things ALL THE WHILE i am still able to talk to my friend
comprehensibly and without inanity.
What i used to leave out because i simply could not handle the load i
now accept and process in a manner that is not detrimental to the
efficiency of any of the processes i might be undertaking at the time.
Pontus Granström
Jul 28, 2009, 3:33:18 AM7/28/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
No they are not the same thing but they are connected. Dopamine is released as a reward. Lack of dopamine receptors may cause
drug addiction and drug addication causes less dopamine receptors.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Pheonoxia <b...@brockman.info> wrote:
Gore Lando
Jul 29, 2009, 1:03:17 AM7/29/09
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
IMO your report -- individual anecdote though it may be, as all of our reports are -- should be quite encouraging for creative types. I hazard that I've experienced the same ... less overload, more noticing.
Ashirgo
Aug 3, 2009, 3:28:59 PM8/3/09
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
No problems with creativity here. On the other hand, I can see what
others cannot (a cliche from Warcraft III, I know ;) I mean that it is
likely that I perceive now much more subtle informations in others
faces when they speak (detecting lies, emotions and other phenomena).
All in all, to me it seems like a lower latent inhibition than before
(before my experience with DNB, when I could not notice such things).
others cannot (a cliche from Warcraft III, I know ;) I mean that it is
likely that I perceive now much more subtle informations in others
faces when they speak (detecting lies, emotions and other phenomena).
All in all, to me it seems like a lower latent inhibition than before
(before my experience with DNB, when I could not notice such things).
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages