Momentarily Reopened? Clarity v. Quantity of stimuli - Implications for BW

[likeprestige]

First of all, if you haven't already done so please ignore my post on
the discussion entitled: "ScienceDaily - Clarity in Short-Term Memory
Shows No Link With IQ". They are the same post. I decided to make a
new title just to make discussion on this a little neater.

In respect to the studies implications of our views on "multi-stim"
mode, it may be plausible (going by what's noted in the article and by
Jonathan's words [see his post framed at the bottom]) that multi-stim
mode may only walk into "clarity" territory more so than "quantity"
when either the representations exceed 1-n-back (potential for
interference [subtle discrimination relies on quality more] as "n"
increases) or when the scenario's that Jonathan mentioned (once again
- framed at the bottom of this post) occur. If this is the case it is
safe to say that "quadruple-stim mode + & other", will still exercise
working memory processes that deal with the quantity of
representations rather than their quality (where 'n' does note
exceed1).

With that in mind, one could run like Usain Bolt on the following if
they were so inclined...

Below is just a description of some of the changes that I make to
"one" multi-stim mode in order to try and agree with the above advice;
obviously these changes could be extrapolated to other modes.

--Quadruple-stim, position, images, sound, sound 2 1-back-- = What
I use.

Sounds - are always different from one another to avoid interference.
Sound 1 = numbers, Sound 2 = letters. After a certain number of trials
I will rotate the sounds from left ear to right ear, just for some
balance (probably a useless thing to do but why do ice skaters need to
train in both a clockwise and anti-clockwise direction? Very poor
argument I know, lol).

Pictures - I do not use any of the default picture modes, I have
instead created a new folder. In this folder is all of the available
images in the default picture modes with the reduction of any "like
matches" (images that are similar) as well as a bunch of other images
that I have obtained from google images. Total amount images = 90+
(although a pretty number for some reason BW seems to be a bit
discriminant as to "how often" it wishes to show _certain_ images).

Position - Well, not much I can do about that but that is why it is
absolutely imperative that one does not exceed 1-n-back, I guess
right?!?!?! That is if my assumption about the majority's goals is
correct (people use BW to improve working memory which may in turn
improve fluid abilities).

Colours - No need to change, very easy to discriminate the colours on
the default settings, in my opinion.

The next question is... Why multi-stim mode over other modes?

I don't think this should be the case.

For me, I use it to try and improve the speed of information
processing and in conjunction I use _pentuple_ mode to aid more
_broad_ working memory processes (hopefully).

Back to business....

Multi stim mode -

Generally, as the percentage of my correct responses increases the
"sec/trial" decreases, so to speak (currently set/trial = 1.50, I hope
one day I can grasp the speed required to perform well under the "set/
trial = 1sec or less"). Another slight adjustment I make to this mode
is that I increase the CHANCE OF GUARANTEED MATCH from the default
-0.125 (I think it is)- to -0.30-. I do this because as a result of
there being more "matches" to contend with it increases the likelihood
that I will have to perform multiple (basic) operations simultaneously
(generally 3 or more), in a very short space of time.

If anyone has anything else to add or comment on please do, I'm very
interested in hearing about other people's opinions on this.

Thanks,

likeprestige

----------------------------------------------------
As promised, Jonathan Toomim's post:
----------------------------------------------------

[Almost everything in Brain Workshop is primarily dependent on
working
memory capacity rather than resolution. The only things that I can
think of which aren't are the lure trials/interference mode settings
and (maybe, at least for me) the cartoon faces stimuli and a couple
of
the shapes stimuli. Multi-stim mode may also depend on memory
resolution to some extent.

In order for the mode to depend on resolution, the probe needs to be
similar to the target, but not (always) identical. If the target
were
blue, the probe might be aquamarine. If the target were a hexagon,
the probe might be a heptagon or octagon. If the target were a
circle
of 100 pixel diameter, the probe might be a circle of 80 pixel
diameter. Et cetera. With pentuple n-back, you have 5 orthogonal
dimensions, but on each dimension the target and probe are either
identical or dissimilar, meaning that it's not resolution-based.

By the way, where does this idea come from that single n-back is
better than dual n-back? I've seen it bandied around here a few
times, but I haven't seen any data that support it. ]

Link: https://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/9f1047b5b428f8a3?hl=en

See 5th post down...

[Arkanj3l]

It's interesting that you choose multi-stim as a task to train
information processing. Why not the other more tried and true options,
like those german games?

Also, I'm wondering if multi-stim somehow increases "sensory
awareness". This goes back to the latent inhibition idea but I'm
curious about your experiences.

> Link:https://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/9...
>
> See 5th post down...

[jttoto]

I think we are getting carried away with latent inhibition. The only
study I can find linking LI and creativity was done on Harvard
students or other high-IQ samples. Not exactly representative of the
entire population. Even the researchers recognized this and aptly
named their study “Decreased Latent Inhibition Is Associated With
Increased Creative Achievement in High-Functioning Individuals,” (The
key is the 2nd half of the title)

The problem with creativity tests is that many people believe that it
is difficult to quantify creativity, and as far as I'm aware there is
no hard evidence that "divergent thinking" tests correlate with actual
creative achievement. (just look at the BW Art Scale) The good thing
about the above mentioned study is that they used actual creative
achievement as a measure of creativity. The problem is that it was
done on a population that doesn't share the characteristics of the
average person. (very high IQ)

In addition, I always thought of LI as more than simply sensory
awareness, but also the ability to see commonplace things in novel
ways. Hard to train if you ask me.

[Arkanj3l]

No, I'm pretty sure LI is mainly sensory awareness. The novelty comes
from the overload of stimuli being processed, rather than the flow of
stimuli in and of itself.

> > > See 5th post down...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[jttoto]

Are people with Low LI making a conscious effort to be aware of
additional stimuli (like when training with multi-stim), or are simply
unable to inhibit being bombarded by multiple stimuli? Based on the
description of the cited study below, I'd say its more of the
latter. I've read rather premature assertions from people on this
board who are trying to train to lower their LI by being more aware of
their environment. The problem is that people with Low LI are not
doing this consciously. How do you lower LI? I don't know the
answer, but I'll wager that training unconscious awareness by using
conscious awareness is rather naive.

http://www.psych.ndsu.nodak.edu/hilmert/SPRG/Papers/Carson_2003.pdf

And as said before, the research on LI and creativity is in its infant
stages. Unless one has a Harvard-level IQ, one should be wary of
worrying about their own LI.

[Arkanj3l]

Fair enough.

The only other option I see is with drugs, which I am of the view that
they should be the last resort. Oh well.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[jttoto]

Another note, the sample sizes weren't even randomized. What lazy
research...

[jttoto]

Excuse me, the sample in the LI study wasn't randomized. Long day.

The sample was made using a sign-up sheet. So what the study is
telling us is, "Low LI predicts Creative Achievement among
Conscientious, Proactive, High-IQ Harvard Students Willing to Use
Their Time for Science." Ugh...proof that research that gains media
attention is not necessarily good research.

[likeprestige]

BW Multi-stim mode and the German games:

I choose this particular BW mode because, in my opinion, it’s a
superior option; “It’s a battle between Federer and Djokovic, if you
really want to think about it. Federer has the proven record (German
games have apparently got a level of scientific backing? Can’t be
bothered checking up), however when push comes to shove, Djokovic (BW
– Multi stim), the logical champ, wins in straight sets.” Not that I’m
a tennis fan though.

As already described, a user is able to modify the time and stimuli to
the suit the level of difficulty that a user can cope with. All of
these changeable options run into much more complexity than what I’m
willing to explain now but the simple fact is the level of difficulty
that can be set in the BW option (still serving the main area of
cognition that you wish to improve) is far greater than any game, let
alone the German games you prescribe. Thus, in comparison, any
perceivable benefits generated from playing the German games are just
dust vs. gold, in my opinion.

If you want further elaboration to enhance the ‘Why’, let me know.
There is a lot of depth, in my opinion as to the potential gains that
can be made from consistent training on this mode. ‘On the fly’ points
that can be made such as improvements in motor coordination,
perceptual speed, attention & finger dexterity is really just
describing the human bodies external appearance, but does not provide
the time that it deserves in order to uncover the complicated internal
processes that go on inside the body (_thank you Da Vinci!!!_).

Multi-stim mode & Latent inhibition:

Under normal circumstances, I do not _currently_ think that by
training under this mode one’s level of latent inhibition will be
lowered. I have not personally experienced any change as a result;
however, I am always weary of any subjective analysis.

Latent inhibition is a very interesting topic, at least that’s the
conclusion that can be reached by the theoretical consequences that
have been postulated about Low vs. High latent inhibition. However, as
Jttoto has mentioned, the corresponding research is still in its
infancy, thus any elaboration on the matter is just like trying to
decode a combination lock without the code (silly business).

I may have missed a few things, but that’s what I got for yah!

Thanks,

likeprestige

> ...
>
> read more »

[ailambris]

Care to elaborate on how memory training, an exercise of the frontal
lobe, could increase latent inhibition, which has largely to do with
the temporal lobe?

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[jttoto]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/33524/intelligence-general-knowledge-and-personality-predictors-creativity.pdf

Back to creativity and IQ, I did find a study on a more representative
sample. In regards to creative achievement and self-reported
creativity, converging multiple studies show that only openness was
related to creativity, while intelligence was not. Intelligence was
only positively related to divergent thinking fluency, which may
simply be a measure of cognitive ability (and figuring out what the
test-giver is looking for) rather than creativity. As mentioned
earlier, divergent thinking tests are unreliable because they don't
necessarily relate to actual achievement. A more reliable way is to
look at what the person actually achieved, and in this case
intelligence shows no relation.

The much quoted study looking at divergent thinking and IQ being
correlated up to 120 only assessed creativity using a rather tenuous
test.

Another interesting note is that emotional stability and extraversion
were correlated positively with self-reported creativity, but not with
actual accomplishment. So stable extraverts view themselves as more
creative, even if that may not necessarily be the case.

> ...
>
> read more »

[jttoto]

I take that back, the sample used in this study was not representative
of the average person. (but I was more referring to previous studies
cited in the link) That being said, in the Harvard sample,
intelligence was significantly related to creative achievement. In
the UK-college sample, intelligence was not. Lesson: results in a
study, even when published in a prestigious journal, do not always
transfer to the average person. I will be happy once a randomized
study is published on creativity and LI.

On Feb 4, 9:13 am, jttoto <jtdem...@uncc.edu> wrote:
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/33524/intelligence-g...

> ...
>
> read more »

[likeprestige]

Thx Jttoto

> ...
>
> read more »