Training Journal - Raman

[Raman]

I would be putting my training journal here noting whatever
improvements in n-back or benefits that I get from this.

As of now I have trained for 5 days with Brain Workshop:

Day Date number of sessions / n-back score
1 12-Jun-09 20 / 2.5
2 13-Jun-09 10 / 2.67
3 14-Jun-09 20 / 2.33
4 15-Jun-09 05 / 2.75
5 16-Jun-09 20 / 3.3


Max n-back achieved 4

[Raman]

Day Date number of sessions / n-back score

6 17-Jun-09 20 / 2.67
7 18-Jun-09 21 / 2.71

I was so happy to have crossed 3 and now seem to be stuck at 2.7 :(

[Mike L.]

Tell me about it...i reached something of a plateau at 5 back and
moved on to 6 back....i'm trying not to group or "chunk" the series as
of yet, so it's becoming increasingly difficult (although i do feel
that i'm progressing) to get a decent score.

However, i revisited 5 back and to my liking i found that i was no
longer at a plateau as i was very consistently getting 87-100 percent
scores.

[Raman]

Day / Date / # of sessions / n-back score = 8 / 19-Jun-09 / 22 / 2.85

Touched N=4 today, but still frustrated about my performance at level
3.

[Raman]

From today I have increased the number of trials from 20 to 30.
Hopefully the higher number will help in increasing my concentration.
I take a lot of breaks while doing this and have not done one extended
sitting even once. Need to change that and do this at one sitting.

[Pheonoxia]

The best way to do that is to decrease the intervals. Go from 3
seconds to 2 seconds, so you operate 50% faster.

[Raman]

Day / Date / # of sessions / n-back score = 9 / 22-Jun-09 / 11 / 2.67

Reduced the interval to 2 sec, but still problems at n=3.

Tried manual mode with interval reduced to 2 sec and number of trials
increased to 150+2 --> On D3B scored 35% and on D2B scored 56%and 59%.
Not at all encouraging. On these long sessions I seemed to totally
space out and really had to snap myself to keep track of the letters
and squares.

[Gaël DEEST]

I'm not sure this is a good idea. I once read an article on geniuses
and child prodigees (I unfortunately didn't keep the link, though I
remember I found it while looking for information on Terence Tao),
which mentioned that their exceptional abilities were linked to what
the article called "long-term working memory". So I don't think it's
that good to remember more things if you're forgetting them as quickly
as before. IMHO it would probably be better to *increase* the
intervals. Remember that we're not aiming a larger number of sessions
per day, but for increased cognitive abilities.

2009/6/20 Pheonoxia <b...@brockman.info>:

[Gaël DEEST]

prodigies, not prodigees... Gee ! :)

2009/6/22 Gaël DEEST <gael....@gmail.com>:

[Curtis Warren]

An interesting suggestion. Somebody should try training with the trial
interval set to some large amount - say, 7 seconds - for a week or so
and report back on any perceived results.

[Gaël DEEST]

I'm gonna try with 4 seconds. I feel 7 seconds is too high ; it leaves
you enough time to actually *learn* the sequence. 4 seconds sounds
like a good compromise, but I may adapt the value in the course of the
process.

I'll try to report back on the results (including on my n-back score,
both with normal and increased intervals) in a few days.

2009/6/22 Curtis Warren <cwar...@gmail.com>:

[Curtis Warren]

7 was just a suggestion. It would be silly to try only one time
setting, anyway. If you wanted to be thorough, I'd try several - 4, 6,
and 8 seconds, for example. In this field, you never know what's going
to happen until you try.

[childofbaud]

> I once read an article on geniuses
> and child prodigees (I unfortunately didn't keep the link, though I
> remember I found it while looking for information on Terence Tao),
> which mentioned that their exceptional abilities were linked to what
> the article called "long-term working memory".

There is a mention of this on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_prodigy
, referencing the following 2001 paper: http://www.mathematicalbrain.com/pdf/PRODIGY.PDF

[Raman]

Day / Date / # of sessions / n-back score = 10 / 23-Jun-09 / 20 /
3.05

Max N-back = 4

today was scoring around 60% on n=3.

[Raman]

Day / Date / # of sessions / n-back score = 11 / 24-Jun-09 / 20 /
3.75

Max N-back = 5

I feel happy, am making some progress!!

Thanks to Pheonoxia and blank for their suggestions. The long sessions
on Sunday really helped (I increased the number of sessions to 300s
and reduced time interval to 2s.)

[Raman]

Day / Date / # of sessions / n-back score =  12 / 25-Jun-09 / 22 / 4.2

Max N-back = 5

Have seen the gains come since I started using the strategy of
repeating the letters... Intuitive method does not help. But at n=5
this seems to be failing!!

[Mike L.]

lol, yea the intuitive method -from what i've heard- won't help you
much at the higher n levels...I always try to keep tabs and focus on
the sequences even if it turns out i have great difficulties at first
remembering it; i think that's what dnb is all about in the end after
all, to practice at what you cannot yet do and train your brain so as
to become adapted, hence, more efficient.

[Gaël DEEST]

Well, I am no psychologist and my main interests are elsewhere (though
I find the field interesting), so I may be talking nonsense. What I
understood was that child prodigies were able to keep information /
facts (such as intermediary mathematical results, bits of reasoning or
anything else) in their head for extended periods of time, possibly
hours or even days, while retaining the capacity to fetch and use
these memories as easily end efficiently as if they were stored in
working memory.

2009/6/24 blank <peisis...@gmail.com>:

>
> "which mentioned that their exceptional abilities were linked to what

> the article called "long-term working memory". So I don't think it's
> that good to remember more things if you're forgetting them as quickly
> as before."
>

> LT-WM is a (very) specialized memory system, it becomes obsolete with
> only slight adjustments in the presentation of the stimuli. I don't
> understand what you mean here.
> >
>

[Raman]

Day / Date / # of sessions / n-back score =  13 / 26-Jun-09 / 20 /
3.95

Max N-back = 5

Today was pretty bad... messed up a lot on n=4 :(

[Raman]

Sesion# Date Avg. n-back Max n-back
1 11/06/2009 2.21 3.00
2 12/06/2009 2.50 3.00
3 13/06/2009 2.60 3.00
4 15/06/2009 2.50 3.00
5 16/06/2009 3.12 4.00
6 17/06/2009 2.63 3.00
7 18/06/2009 2.73 3.00
8 19/06/2009 2.79 4.00
9 22/06/2009 2.63 3.00
10 23/06/2009 3.05 4.00
11 24/06/2009 3.75 5.00
12 25/06/2009 4.05 5.00
13 26/06/2009 3.95 5.00
14 29/06/2009 4.60 5.00

Could not touch n=6 despite getting a few scores in high 70's. But as
of now I don't really see any difference in cognitive performance. It
might be that am not doing anything challenging as of now, but still,
some subjective change should have been visible. Is this because I am
taking breaks in between the session and not doing this daily?

[Mike L.]

I don't think you're not noticing the changes because you're not doing
it daily...

It might be due to many things; to pinpoint any one of them would be
conjecture.

Give it some time...the brain has to do what is called "consolidation"
after a period of training with something that works it so that it can
better adapt. This takes a bit from what i've heard. In any case, you
might not be noticing them because just that which you mentioned. Try
thinking about things you haven't thought about before, or things
you've thought of before but which you could not fully go around. See
if you can solve problems of arithmetic quicker.

If you're improving in your score, there should be a change occuring
(at least if you don't use the intuitive method and have to actually
memorize the sequence).

[childofbaud]

Despite what some people on this board appear to believe, I continue
to maintain that intelligence is not a 'feeling', and neither is
working memory. Therefore, a *subjective* change would be impossible
to detect. To test your cognitive performance objectively, you could
try IQ tests or digit spans. I would think that any improvement after
14 days is likely to be slight.

On Jun 29, 1:34 am, Raman <raman.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Curtis Warren]

You can't "feel" strength, either. But you _can_ feel the effects of a
heavy workout quite easily.

[childofbaud]

On Jun 29, 10:06 pm, Curtis Warren <cwarre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can't "feel" strength, either. But you _can_ feel the effects of a
> heavy workout quite easily.

The feeling after a heavy workout is strain, fatigue and prehaps other
things, not strength.

Strength, or an increase in it can't be 'felt' either. You may note
the effects of increased strength by affecting your environment,
perhaps. But that's certainly not a 'feeling'. Even so, it might just
be a temporary surge of andrenaline or other factors, rather than the
effects of a work-out.

The only way to measure increases in strength accurately is by
repeated and controlled objective testing, accounting for external
variables as much as possible.

The same is likely true for intelligence and working memory.

[Curtis Warren]

Most people are capable of "eyeballing" their strength to a fairly
precise measure. If you find it easier to walk places after instating
a jogging routine, chances are you're feeling the effects. Similarly,
if you feel more mentally nimble after instating a brain training
routine, chances are you're feeling its effects.

[Raman]

Day Date Avg. n-back Max n-back Number of Sessions
15 30/06/2009 4.42 6.00 24

Touched n = 6 today. (my avg. n-back would be slightly inflated today
as I reached 6 on my 19th block and then continued for another 5
blocks before I got downgraded to 5!)

I am not using the intuitive method. I am memorising the sequence of
letters and repeating it. For the visual ones I zigzag my eyes across
the grid to sort of memorise it (so I don't memorise the visual and
audio in a single stream). I was using the intuitive method earlier
but as you can see from my scores, I was not making any progress at
that time.

I do the sessions in morning but sometimes I do practice in the
evening. During the practice rounds I reduce the time to 2s and the
number of trials to around 300s. I do not feel sleepy or some strain
after I do the sessions. During the sessions if I lose track there is
a feeling of strain, but given that I am trying to concentrate on the
sequence this does not last long.

Measuring any cognitive improvements for me would be tough as I did
not do any IQ tests or any digit span tests before starting this
training. I am continuing this because I expect that some cognitive
improvements should occur, without that motivation would be pretty low
for continuing. I will try to do this for another couple of months
and then see if I feel any subjective improvement.

[Pontus Granström]

I certainly feel calmer happier and more motivated after doing DNB, it has to do with the increase of dopamine receptors no doubt!

[Paul]

The list of papers citing the Jaeggi study is growing. 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/25/0801268105.abstract

[Raman]

Day              Date                  Avg. n-back      Max n-back    
 Number of Sessions

15                02/07/2009       4.65                    6.00  
                 20

I somehow find level 6 to be easier then 5. Earlier, whenever I have
moved up a level, I used to get <50% on the first 3 trials on new
level (and got bumped down a level). But this has not happened on
level 6.

[Raman]

Day    Date             Avg. n-back    Max n-back    # of Sessions
16      03/07/2009     4.80                6.00                20

[MR]

You could still test your digit span. In all likelihood, it was
initially somewhere between 6 and 8, as it is for most people. If you
get above 10, which many people on here get with dnb training, you've
probably made some improvement. I know I tried a before and after
digit span and found that I went from 8 to 11 after 20 days.

If I were you, I would try doing 1hr sessions (or 40 trials/day) for a
week, then plot all of your results over # of sessions. If you see a
major increase in your rate of improvement, we can all take that as
evidence that 1hr sessions may increase the speed of improvement over
30 min sessions, and pursue the question further.

You should all take a look at one user's plot of his mean n-back level
over the number of training days (all of which involved 20 sessions)
at http://mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/brain-exercises/working-memory-training-report-martin-session-160/

What you can see is that for him at least, progress was steady for
about 45 to 50 days - the slope of his mean dual n-back level over
training days remains fairly constant. You're still within that 45-day
window, and so if you make any consistent adjustments to the way you
train (such as doubling the number of trials per day), changes in your
rate of improvement may show that the adjustments had a positive
effect. This is assumes that the change in his rate of improvement is
generalizable.

Now the reason it would be interesting to show this also comes from
his plot. What it basically shows is that though there's an initial
period of rapid improvement, one then reaches what appears to be a
plateau phase where improvement comes at a much slower rate. Still
however, improvement seems to continue if one remains diligent and
persists with the training long-term.

What I would like to see is if we can shorten the initial rapid
improvement window by increasing the number of daily trials. If
doubling the training time per day halves the time to improvement, one
could get to the plateau phase sooner (ie in 22-25 days in this case),
and can then switch to a less demanding number of sessions per day for
the plateau phase. The effects would be two-fold: first, the more
rapid rate of improvement would motivate new users to continue as the
effects will be seen faster, whereas the less intense requirements
during the plateau phase would make it easier for people to keep
training long term, knowing that improvements will come slowly as long
as they keep playing (doing 40 sessions straight is pretty demanding,
and probably not sustainable unless people have tons of free time on
their hands).

Anyway, just a thought I've been having for a while now.

MR

[Curtis Warren]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM, MR<rous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You could still test your digit span. In all likelihood, it was
> initially somewhere between 6 and 8, as it is for most people. If you
> get above 10, which many people on here get with dnb training, you've
> probably made some improvement. I know I tried a before and after
> digit span and found that I went from 8 to 11 after 20 days.
>
> If I were you, I would try doing 1hr sessions (or 40 trials/day) for a
> week, then plot all of your results over # of sessions. If you see a
> major increase in your rate of improvement, we can all take that as
> evidence that 1hr sessions may increase the speed of improvement over
> 30 min sessions, and pursue the question further.

I suppose there is no harm in this. Really, though, such an experiment
would be more like "motivation" rather than "evidence." At least,
considering how variable n-back results seem to be. I encourage
everyone on this list to do their own experimenting, rather than
relying on the experiences of others.

For example, over the past week I have been trying a new training
routine. My goal was to increase my intelligence as quickly as
possible. To that end, over the past 4 days I've done a total of
roughly 360 sessions @ 2 seconds per trial (= ~360 minutes of
training). I had to rest on Wednesday, and I'm resting again today (I
only plan on doing about 40 trials today). But I intend to finish off
the week by doing 100 sessions on Saturday and another 100 on Sunday.
Or more, if I can manage it.

The point is, while I can say without a doubt that this schedule has
been effective _for me_, it might not be effective _for you_. Are the
benefits worth the amount of work needed? Will you even notice an
improvement? Is this healthy? These are all factors which depend
entirely upon the individual actually _doing_ the training. For all
you know, your experience could be completely different than mine.
This is why it's essential that, before you institute a training
routine, you actually test your assumptions first. Don't rely on
someone else to do it. Don't rely on seemingly "logical" deductions.
Experiment!

(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.)

[MR]

Curtis, could you elaborate on the changes you noticed as well as your
change in average n-back level over that period?

Thanks,

M

On Jul 4, 6:51 pm, Curtis Warren <cwarre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > athttp://mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/brain-exercises/working-mem...

[Curtis Warren]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:32 PM, MR<rous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Curtis, could you elaborate on the changes you noticed as well as your
> change in average n-back level over that period?

After the first couple days of training, I experienced a very rapid
increase in intelligence. It suddenly became easier to think. I can't
give you any hard evidence, since I didn't bother to take any tests
before I started. However, I can give you this: when I woke up
Wednesday morning, I felt the same as I did after the first time I
tried n-back. Except the feeling was 10 times stronger, and my
thinking was noticeably faster and more comprehensive.

With regards to changes in n-back level, I went up about 1 solid level
on all the tasks that I trained. That is, I went from 7 to 8 for dual,
6 to 7 for position-sound-color, 6 to 7 for position-sound-shape, and
4 to 5 on quad. I don't use any strategies.

[Raman]

Day    Date             Avg. n-back    Max n-back    # of Sessions

18      05/07/2009     5.83                 7.00                 30

(I made some mistake earlier and today is day 18 previous was 17
instead of 16 that I had put).

Touched 7 today and again played more than 20 sessions to inflate my
score!! Out of the 30 sessions, 14 were at level 7 and 7 at level 6
and 4 at level 5. I definitely fine level 6 to be easier than level 5
or 7.

Can someone post a link to the digit span test? I will test myself on
that.

And s far as doing this thing for an hour or longer, I can find the
time, but motivation would be a huge issue. I take a break of a few
minutes in between the tasks, doing 40 sessions would really stretch
this thing way beyond 1 hour.

As far as cognitive improvements, I guess its tougher to sense
subjective improvements unless they are huge.

Curtis, I sense what you are trying to state when you feel the
improvement. I had gone for a Vipassana meditation retreat once, and
on day 7 when I woke up I felt a clarity of mind that I still yearn
for to this day. I had never in my life felt so alive mentally as that
day (and alas, never since!). I hope to achieve that kind of feeling
at least once with DnB also.

Cheers

[MR]

Interesting... I wonder if the feeling is transient. That is, whether
it will dissipate (if it hasn't already) once you bring down the
intensity of your training even if your n-back level remains the same
or continues to improve at a slower rate.

As for digit span tests, this thread had a couple:
http://groups.google.ca/group/dualnback/browse_thread/thread/fa29274c8159ebae/55eeb12f18757d5c?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=digit+span#55eeb12f18757d5c



On Jul 5, 10:49 am, Curtis Warren <cwarre...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Mike L.]

There has actually been conducted a study (which can be found on this
group) that proved to a certain extent that the improvement in
cognitive performance as due to training with DNB did not dissipate
over a period of time -or rather, i should probably say- that it did
not do so at a fast pace.

If my memory serves well, the study was comprised of students with
some sort of learning disability who trained with DNB and consequently
showed improvements in mathematical performance and other subjects of
the like.

The students who improved (those who trained with DNB) took a test
similar (or the same, perhaps) to the test they had initially taken to
measure their performance before and after having trained with DNB 6
months after the fact and indeed proved by their performance that
whatever improvements they showed originally remained after 6 months
of having ceased training with DNB.

http://brain-training.googlegroups.com/web/holmes2009sustainedenhancementofwminchildren.pdf?gda=qiOKaWIAAADoL5LB-IPhi_LewbwgiTtl_DuymPjGTTYl0_kx4Q8EaoTw-xDcdJI9JS-1Ynze0gCCeLKv1SJucxwJkUrxhcuTgrzl4q3ioM7XohU5ZPKtOlXi7dpriIAjJhAipsb2do-CHqjxxwsG8_oKG53kozMh

That's the link of the afformentioned study.

On Jul 5, 11:31 pm, MR <rouss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting... I wonder if the feeling is transient. That is, whether
> it will dissipate (if it hasn't already) once you bring down the
> intensity of your training even if your n-back level remains the same
> or continues to improve at a slower rate.
>

> As for digit span tests, this thread had a couple:http://groups.google.ca/group/dualnback/browse_thread/thread/fa29274c...

[Raman]

Day    Date             Avg. n-back    Max n-back    # of Sessions

19      06/07/2009     4.95                 6.00                 20

Back to low scores... :-(

19 days with n-back are over... no subjective benefits as such. But I
am aware at what point I am comfortable or not. e.g. y'day playing the
game was effortless, and today my brain felt sort of sticky, the
sequence was just not sticking in my brain. very strange what a few
hours can do.

[Mike L.]

Subjective results are hard to come by if you don't become involved on
a regular basis with something mentally taxing. For example, if after
having trained with DNB, I find myself thinking of whatever concepts i
might come across at the time that i had not previously come across,
there just is no way to see whether or not my mental capabilities have
improved.

Simply: You cannot feel subjective benefits without already having
something to compare against. If today i feel it's difficult to
multiply in my head but tomorrow i find that it has become easier, the
subjective benefits come to awareness; otherwise, there really isn't a
way to tell if one benefits or not from training.


Do this if you want: Take one of the many fluid iq tests that can be
found online today and after another 19 days test yourself again to
see if you've improved any.

I recommend http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

[Pontus Granström]

Tried a digit span test today scored 11 without a problem, http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch07/digitspan.mhtml.

[Mike L.]

wow, an 11?

Had you taken one already before beginning DNB training?

What n level are you at by the way?

I'm starting to think one's digit span is a bit above their n level,
perhaps 2-3 digits higher.

On Jul 6, 12:44 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tried a digit span test today scored 11 without a problem,http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch07/digitspan.mhtml.

>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Mike L. <cool2bwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Subjective results are hard to come by if you don't become involved on
> > a regular basis with something mentally taxing. For example, if after
> > having trained with DNB, I find myself thinking of whatever concepts i
> > might come across at the time that i had not previously come across,
> > there just is no way to see whether or not my mental capabilities have
> > improved.
>
> > Simply: You cannot feel subjective benefits without already having
> > something to compare against. If today i feel it's difficult to
> > multiply in my head but tomorrow i find that it has become easier, the
> > subjective benefits come to awareness; otherwise, there really isn't a
> > way to tell if one benefits or not from training.
>
> > Do this if you want: Take one of the many fluid iq tests that can be
> > found online today and after another 19 days test yourself again to
> > see if you've improved any.
>

> > I recommendhttp://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

[Raman]

I got 15 on the digit span

Got a 1 on the first go coz I did not read the instructions, so I
guess 15 is correct.

http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch07/digitspan.mhtml

[Raman]

181505014106835

[Pheonoxia]

Raman, congratulations on training your working memory on DNB for 19
days. Thanks for your contributions too. The Jaeggi study group that
trained 19 days tested with the highest intelligence gains, and they
trained longer than any other group. That bitch writer on
braintraining101.com, the one who meritriciously endorses Mind Sparke
Brain Fitness Pro (the non-free version of Brainworkshop), only
trained for 19 days too.

I don't know of any documentation about n-back training extending past
the 19 day mark. That's where you're at right now. I encourage you to
continue training and updating your e-journal after today. This thread
needs to stay alive. As you keep updating your journal, plenty of
people will continue posting here too, which is good.

Given the all the fluid intelligence gains you'll experience
throughout the life of this journal, you're going to draw tons of
external attention to this forum too. You're could prove a correlation
between n-back training and digit span, which hasn't been done before.
Since the research tying n-back training with increases in
intelligence is still pretty new, you'll be giving the research
community more data to work with.

Few people have the resolve that you do, instead their lazy asses are
content with intellectual mediocrity. I'm sure you're capable of
pulling this journal out to 50 or 100 days, easily. Be the first to
train and document past the 19 day mark.

Ultimately, you win over everyone else. You'll become an extremely
influential person on this Google Group... and you're going to make
yourself a lot smarter too.

Thanks

[Mike L.]

lol, Kinda funny actually...i got a 14 on the second one and a 11 on
the third...the first was a 10...hm

[childofbaud]

Not to belittle Raman's accomplishments, but MR posted a link to
http://mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/brain-exercises/working-memory-training-report-martin-session-160/
earlier, in this very thread. This user is at 160 sessions and
counting. (Incidentally, I found that user's graph to mirror my own to
a large extent—a significant upward trajectory for the first few
months, then a gradual levelling off, but still progressing. Anyone
else?)

[childofbaud]

Yeah, my results were pretty erratic as well.

It's also relatively easy to 'cheat' inadvertently by keeping one's
fingers over the initial digits on the keyboard.

I don't know whether the results achieved on such a self-administered
online digit span would correlate accurately to a professionally
administered one.

[Raman]

Wow... man..., thats one motivational post!!! :)

And I totally second the title of bitch for the site that u mentioned.
I posted twice on her blog about Brain workshop but my comment was not
published.

There are a bunch of people at mind sparke who are posting their
progress past the 19th day mark and they continue to report subjective
benefits. A couple of people are older than 50 an age where this kind
of training might really help. What I find strange is they continue to
measure sessions in 19 days increment, I think they should move to 30
day cycle.

I will continue to train, and as I train will continue to post. I want
to reach D9B (7+2 number) and then will try my hand at Triple or Quad
or Arithmetic n-back.

On Jul 7, 8:03 am, Pheonoxia <b...@brockman.info> wrote:
> Raman, congratulations on training your working memory on DNB for 19
> days. Thanks for your contributions too. The Jaeggi study group that
> trained 19 days tested with the highest intelligence gains, and they
> trained longer than any other group. That bitch writer on

> <stupid site - name deleted - don't want to give her more publicity>, the one who meritriciously endorses Mind Sparke

[Raman]

I think some numbers are easier to remember than others, eg. for me 50
is easy, 181 was easy so I broke the number to
181-50-50-14-10-6-8-3-5, so is my digit span still 15?

[Mike L.]

from what i can recall from the professional digit-span test i was
given, there is a slight difference; first, the prof adm. test
includes letters as well as numbers and secondly, one is asked to
repeat the sequence in order from lowest number to the highest number
followed by the letters in alaphaebetical order.

so if a sequence was verbalized such as X3F21P90T, you would have to
repeat it as 01239FPTX

[Mike L.]

Well, like i mentioned above, i think digit-span is measured a bit
differently than how it is on the website given. Nonetheless it still
is quite difficult to remember a span of numbers that large and in any
case i'm pretty sure there's a pretty strong correlation....give or
take, i'd say you're real digit-span is somewhere around 12-14 given
that on average, i got a span of 13 digits which roughly translates
( as is on my last prof adm. IQ test) to a true digit-span of 11.

It's a feat though, just 19 days of training raised it by 4 digits...

I also suspect there's some sort of correlation between n-level and
one's digit span, though i'm not entirely sure.

[Pontus Granström]

I took the airforce admission test and got a digitspan score of 12. The 11 I got yesterday felt rather easy to get but I didnt use any chunking.

[Pheonoxia]

Pontus, do you know anything about Air Force or military criteria for
the digit span test? What does it mean if you score high? Is there a
limit before higher scores stop counting for you?

[Pontus Granström]

Well actually a stannine score of 5 is what it takes to get into pilot training my digit span score was 6, however I do not think they care if your score is above stanine 5, which roughly corresponds to the top 5 percentile.

[Martin Syk]

I think you got it wrong there Pontus.
Stanine, standard nine, is scaled from 1 to 9. Average is 5 and
standard deviation is 2.
A 9 means you're somewhere around the 95-99% , roughly equvialent to
IQ 130 or above T 68,5.

Digit span of 11 is probably a 9, or close to a 9, in the normal
population.
Good job.

[Pontus Granström]

Yes exactly but when you apply for the airfoce everyone is above average so a stanine of 1 corrsponds to 5 and 2 corrsponds to 6 etc.

[Pontus Granström]

My raw score of 12 got me a stanine score of 6 on a scale for above average ability :D that's what I meant.

[Martin Syk]

ah, right, i'm with you

On 8 Juli, 00:59, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My raw score of 12 got me a stanine score of 6 on a scale for above average
> ability :D that's what I meant.
>

[David]

Are digit span tests supposed to repeat the digits like that?
Furthermore, all digits are displayed together following each
addition. If you take at the digit span test(s) at cogfun.net (for
example), you'll find it harder.

On Jul 6, 6:44 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tried a digit span test today scored 11 without a problem,http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch07/digitspan.mhtml.

>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Mike L. <cool2bwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Subjective results are hard to come by if you don't become involved on
> > a regular basis with something mentally taxing. For example, if after
> > having trained with DNB, I find myself thinking of whatever concepts i
> > might come across at the time that i had not previously come across,
> > there just is no way to see whether or not my mental capabilities have
> > improved.
>
> > Simply: You cannot feel subjective benefits without already having
> > something to compare against. If today i feel it's difficult to
> > multiply in my head but tomorrow i find that it has become easier, the
> > subjective benefits come to awareness; otherwise, there really isn't a
> > way to tell if one benefits or not from training.
>
> > Do this if you want: Take one of the many fluid iq tests that can be
> > found online today and after another 19 days test yourself again to
> > see if you've improved any.
>

> > I recommendhttp://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

[David]

...as blank already has pointed out.

[Mike L.]

I have a minor question:

Is it expected for one to perform worse on Digit-Span backwards than
on Digit-Span forward?

Does digit span backwards correlate differently to IQ than does DSF?

[Martin Syk]

Yes, it is normal to perform worse at the backwardsspan (source: WAIS-
III normed groups) maybe since it puts extra load on the working
memory when you reverse your memory? Some say it tests working memory,
while forward span tests short term memory; but that seems a bit too
simplified in my opinion.

[Pontus Granström]

Martin  what is the normed score for a digit span of 12?

[Martin Syk]

Actually the norms are combined with backwardsspan, so they're added
up to one scale. You start at 2 digits in both exercises and work your
way up by being correct on at least one of two trials. I think
forwardspan is limited at 10 digits and backwardspan at 8; that means
an ideal score is 36. I think anything above 30 is normed as a scaled
score of 19, which is 3 std above general population (equivalent to IQ
145).

In this test the numbers are read out, one by one, at about one per
second.

[Mike L.]

That's interesting actually, that the reverse span digit test tests
working memory and the forward span digit test tests short term
memory; I had asked originally because i got a slightly higher reverse
span digit test score than i did for it's forward counterpart; 2
digits higher.

[Raman]

 Day    Date             Avg. n-back    Max n-back    # of Sessions
 19      06/07/2009     4.95                6                 

20
20 07/07/2009 5.00 6 20
21 08/07/2009 4.60 6 15
22 10/07/2009 6.09 7 23

I seem to do better after taking a day off.

[Raman]

I took the 2 tests on this site:

http://aboutworkingmemory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=42

Got 5 on the first and 9 on the digit span one.

I also took the PASAT-2 y'day on Cogfun and got 100% in 2,241 ms.

[Raman]

Day   Date            Avg. n-back    Max n-back    # of Sessions

22     10/07/2009   6.09                7                  23

23 11/07/2009 6.83 9 24


Today I jumped from a max of 7 to max of 9!!! Felt really focused
while doing n=8.

This completes my first 30 days of DnB - 23 sessions - went from and
n=2 to n=9. Am hoping there is some change in my brain too :)

Cheers,
Raman

[Gwern Branwen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Raman wrote:
> This completes my first 30 days of DnB - 23 sessions - went from and
> n=2 to n=9. Am hoping there is some change in my brain too :)
>
> Cheers,
> Raman

That's quite an improvement! Did you by any chance take one of the
free IQ tests before starting? One would definitely expect a change in
before & after if you managed to progress 7 levels.

- --
gwern
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREKAAYFAkpY420ACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oKhuwCfdIR8iPFfXHkd81V1zKa+yqC5
1WUAn1Ji5bS1KlrP/UwGJoI0L4F5et5n
=C5Rq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[TheQ17]

I think the best advice I received on this forum is doing the game for
10-15 minutes straight through. It definitely helped my concentration
and not only does it make the training quicker you actually get more
play time per session. If you are only doing the one minute session
the first 4-6 (in your case) blocks you receive is not helping train
your WM. Once I started training in longer blocks I noticed
improvement on whatever block I was stuck on. I've moved all the way
up to Quad4back using this method and still using it.

On Jun 29, 2:31 am, "Mike L." <cool2bwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think you're not noticing the changes because you're not doing
> it daily...
>
> It might be due to many things; to pinpoint any one of them would be
> conjecture.
>
> Give it some time...the brain has to do what is called "consolidation"
> after a period of training with something that works it so that it can
> better adapt. This takes a bit from what i've heard. In any case, you
> might not be noticing them because just that which you mentioned. Try
> thinking about things you haven't thought about before, or things
> you've thought of before but which you could not fully go around. See
> if you can solve problems of arithmetic quicker.
>
> If you're improving in your score, there should be a change occuring
> (at least if you don't use the intuitive method and have to actually
> memorize the sequence).
>
> On Jun 29, 1:34 am, Raman <raman.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sesion#         Date            Avg. n-back     Max n-back
> > 1               11/06/2009      2.21            3.00
> > 2               12/06/2009      2.50            3.00
> > 3               13/06/2009      2.60            3.00
> > 4               15/06/2009      2.50            3.00
> > 5               16/06/2009      3.12            4.00
> > 6               17/06/2009      2.63            3.00
> > 7               18/06/2009      2.73            3.00
> > 8               19/06/2009      2.79            4.00
> > 9               22/06/2009      2.63            3.00
> > 10              23/06/2009      3.05            4.00
> > 11              24/06/2009      3.75            5.00
> > 12              25/06/2009      4.05            5.00
> > 13              26/06/2009      3.95            5.00
> > 14              29/06/2009      4.60            5.00
>
> > Could not touch n=6 despite getting a few scores in high 70's. But as
> > of now I don't really see any difference in cognitive performance. It
> > might be that am not doing anything challenging as of now, but still,
> > some subjective change should have been visible. Is this because I am
> > taking breaks in between the session and not doing this daily?

[Raman]

No I did not do any before and after tests. Anyways, increasing scores
on tests is not really important. For me the really important thing is
to be and feel intelligent :) (if that makes any sense).

I have a couple of questions:

1. Is it important to start at n=2? Can I start at say 5?
2. Is there something special about 3.0 s/trial? Can I reduce it to
2.50 s/trial? This would reduce the time to finish the sessions.
3. Instead of getting promoted to a higher n by getting >80%, can this
be changed so that 2 consective 80% are required before getting
promoted?
4. If brain is like a muscle, is there an equivalent of HIIT for
brain? eg. train intensively for 20s and rest for 10s and then repeat?

I am talking about the automatic mode and not the manual mode.

[smeagol]

1 no. yes.
2.no. yes. But total length of time spent training may matter too.
Don't think we really know.
3 yes, but only if you want to hack the code. you can change your 80%
to XY% in the config file, however
4. I don't know of any reasonable basis for believing that the brain
is like a muscle in that way.

[Martin Syk]

I have also been thinking about your last question. There is at least
some reason to believe that the brain grows as a result of the
combination of "stress" (practice) and rest so maybe you are on to
something.

It would be interesting to start elaborating with breakes and session
lenghts.

How can you make the task more intense?

[Tofu]

Dude, what is the point of keeping a journal for other people to see?
At least get some intelligence testing done for confirmation of the
Jaeggi study or something.

[childofbaud]

Wow, congrats on reaching n=9. That's an incredible achievement, and
after only 23 sessions, too!

Do you play with default settings? Jaeggi mode?

[Raman]

Well dude, I took 3 IQ tests today and got 128, 112 and 130.

One of these was the iqtest.dk one, another was the norwegian mensa
one and the third was eCMA from the high soceity or something like that
(this was a crappy test). I can post the links against the scores if
you want those. Looking at the scores am pretty sad, I considered
myself to be smart enuf to get into Mensa (though I never took the
test) and if am getting these scores as an improvement after DnB then
my level before DnB must be quite pathetic.

I can't do any before and after comparison as I did not take a before
test.

[TheQ17]

If it only jumped 5-6 points, would you consider it not worth the
effort?

[dualnback]

Hmm, I don't know Raman. If we average your scores, although not
scientific, you have an iq of 123 as of now, which put you in the top
6.7% of mankind in terms of intelligence and makes you smarter than
roughly 6.3 billion people. I may be crazy but that seems
exceptionally good to me. If you continue DNB you will only get
better, I am sure. Be happy and grateful for where you are right
now. In any event, you are on the right track. Best.

P.s. I love your diary. It's very encouraging.

On Jul 14, 3:12 pm, Raman <raman.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

[childofbaud]

If it makes you feel any better, Nobel prize winning physicist Richard
Feynman is widely reported to have had an IQ of 125.

Also, IQ scores can vary widely for the same person, depending on what
the tests measure (crystallized vs. fluid intelligence), whether
they're timed vs. untimed, environmental factors, etc.

On Jul 14, 3:12 pm, Raman <raman.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Raman]

Yeah, thats cool... Please welcome the latest genius - Raman
Feynman!!! :-) - and if Feynman had IQ of 125 am sure mine is not more
than 100!

I was sad because the one test that was tough I scored lower on that,
the other 2 tests don't matter!! I like scoring well on good tests.

Anyways I don't think that IQ tests matter after age 30 - I think by
30 your IQ would have taken you wherever it could and after that its
mostly the crystallized intelligence / knowledge that would determine
whatever results you are seeking.
But if DnB can help in keeping the mind slightly better off then that
would be nice. I haven't trained for the last few days, I think I will
take this week off and then start again - see if I reach 9 again. If I
can do 9 at above 50% consistently then I would like to start on
Triple or Quad nB.

For people who are also training and might read this journal - why
don't you post your scores - not on a daily basis - but once in a
while. I think there are quite a few guys who have been training for
>3 months - what makes you persist on this?

[MR]

What would be interesting would be hearing from Curtis with respect to
his intensive dual,triple, and quad n-back regimen. I'd be
particularly interested in 1) whether the increased training time per
day translated to a more rapid improvement in n-back level, and 2)
whether there have been any "real world" effects noted after such
training.

M

[Curtis Warren]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:20 PM, MR<rous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What would be interesting would be hearing from Curtis with respect to
> his intensive dual,triple, and quad n-back regimen. I'd be
> particularly interested in 1) whether the increased training time per
> day translated to a more rapid improvement in n-back level

Of course. You have to be careful with that, though. If you train too
much (like I did), you'll spend a lot more time recovering. The best
approach would probably be to train just above your limit, but not so
long that you have to rest all of the next day.

> and 2)
> whether there have been any "real world" effects noted after such
> training.

This is a difficult question to answer, as any response I could give
would be subjective. Let's just say, it was well worth the amount of
time I put into it.

[Iron]

Sorry if you have already posted this, Curtis, but I don't know
anything about your regiment. I'm quite curious, especially because
you seem to feel that it worked well for you. If you could outline
what you did for me, that would be great. Thanks.

[Pontus Granström]

I took a new IQ-test today that is normed on the swedish population! Check out the results!

[Mike L.]

pontus, is this an increase from the last time you took one of these
tests?

If so, by how much was the increase?

Is there the possibility that different tests might have different
norms thus causing the change in IQ score?

Thanks ;-)

>  Screenshot.png
> 649KViewDownload

[Pontus Granström]

Yes in "raw IQ points" it's an increase of 10 points! The amount of DNB training in between is basiclly todays date minus the last posts date. What's more interesting though is that I am ranke 30 out of 72000 people!!! WOW!

[MR]

Pontus, you should try the norwegian mensa test and see if you get the
same score, or if like Raman, you get something significantly lower.

M

On Jul 15, 7:46 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I took a new IQ-test today that is normed on the swedish population! Check
> out the results!
>

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Iron <IronPanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry if you have already posted this, Curtis, but I don't know
> > anything about your regiment.  I'm quite curious, especially because
> > you seem to feel that it worked well for you.  If you could outline
> > what you did for me, that would be great.  Thanks.
>
>
>

>  Screenshot.png
> 649KViewDownload

[Pontus Granström]

Already tried the norweigen mensa test and scored 133!

[Mike L.]

What N-back level are you on, just out of curiosity, Pontus?

[Pontus Granström]

Level 5-6.

[Toto]

I just took this test and it seemed strangely familiar to me :) Where
have I seen these questions? :) Actually, all but 2 or 3 have been
taken from the Danish Mensa test. And if this is done without
permission, I would question the validity of the results - only the
easier ones are used and you have to pay for the results.
Btw, I took a numeric IQ test 2 days ago and the score was 12 points
higher. But then I took 2 culture-fair tests and got 8 and 4 points
less. I don't know how to explain this... maybe I spent too much time
on some difficult questions nad didn't try hard enough, because I had
already taken the tests many times. I hope my g IQ is not dropping :)
(even if it is, I'm not saying it's because of DNB training, there
certainly are other reasons, but it's strange any way :)

On Jul 15, 2:46 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I took a new IQ-test today that is normed on the swedish population! Check
> out the results!
>

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Iron <IronPanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry if you have already posted this, Curtis, but I don't know
> > anything about your regiment.  I'm quite curious, especially because
> > you seem to feel that it worked well for you.  If you could outline
> > what you did for me, that would be great.  Thanks.
>
>
>

>  Screenshot.png
> 649KViewDownload

[Pontus Granström]

I got the same feeling which makes it even a better measurement of dnb training ;) However I do not think that IQ-tests tell the whole truth, it's the increase of dopamine receptors that is interesting and that can be confirmed by other means.