On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:55 AM, jttoto wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.5)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkn7IPcACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oKNigCfQy5p9oUECiB8HbA70hXue5Tu
bG4AoItubQk0q2GuA5zm7J1P6gAtzPuf
=uEll
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> Hey, when I was originally tested by a psychologist a year ago she
> gave me an IQ of around 126.
>
> I was n-backing for 5 days before today. I average at around a 4.2
> right now. I found an online test made by a a group of Mensa members
> and I scored around a 135. http://mensa.no/olavtesten/# How legit
> is this test? (this was also a completely different test than the one
> I took a year ago, the last one more verbal, this one more spatial)
As you say, 2 different tests are basically incomparable. What I
recommend in my FAQ
http://community.haskell.org/~gwern/wiki/N-back%20FAQ.page is that you
take the same test at the beginning and end, hopefully having trained
for a long time (so as to minimize test-retest effects & maximize any
benefit from N-back). Even better is if you find a randomized Ravens.
> Also, has anyone taken the test before and after n-backing and saw a
> drastic change in your score? I felt pretty good about my changes,
> but now I'm skeptical.
From my FAQ on precisely this topic:
'Reports of IQ tests have been mixed. Some results have been stunning:
> "LSaul [posted about](http://groups.google.ca/group/dualnback/browse_thread/thread/97b2340497476ecc/9959b6da18f8fbea) his apparent rise in IQ back in October. From what I remember, he had recently failed to qualify for MENSA, which requires a score of about 131 (98th percentile). He then got a 151 (99.97th percentile) on a professionally administered IQ test (WAIS) three months later, after 2 months of regular dual-n-back use." --[MR](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/8af44f3b20df9904)
Some have not:
> "I took the Online Denmark IQ test again [after N-back training] and I got 140 (the same
result)
> I took a standardized (and charged) online IQ test from www.iqtest.com and I got 134 (though it may be a bit higher because English is not my mother tongue)" --[Crypto](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/8af44f3b20df9904/c397c36355355d4c)
Tofu [writes](http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/d1e53e8c69c95c3a):
> "I've purposely not been doing anything to practice for the tests or anything else I thought could increase my score so I wouldn't have to factor other things into an improvement in iq, which makes improvements more likely attributable to dual n-back. Before I took the test I scored at 117, a score about 1 in about 8 people can get (7.78 to be exact), and yesterday I scored at 127 (a score that 1 in 28 people would get). Its a pretty big difference I would say."
The blogger of ["Inhuman
Experiment"](http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/), who played for
~22 days and went from ~2.6-back to ~4-back,
[reports](http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2009/03/increasing-intelligence-by-playing.html):
> "The other test proved to be quite good (you can find it [here](http://www.iqout.com/)). In this one, the questions vary, the difficulty is adjusted on the go depending on whether you answer them correctly, and there's a time limit of 45 seconds per question, which makes this test better suited for re-taking. My first test, taken before playing the game, gave me a score of 126; my second test, taken yesterday, gave me a score of 132 (an increase of about 5%)....As you can see, it's kind of difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from this. Yes, there was a slight increase in my score, but I would say a similar increase could've been possible even without playing the game. I think the variation in the IQ test questions reduces the "learning by heart" effect, but that's impossible to say without a control group."
Keep in mind, that if IQ is improved, that doesn't necessarily mean
anything unless one employs it to some end. It would be a shame to
boost one's IQ through N-back, but never use it because one was too
busy playing!'
--
gwern
Oral creatine monohydrate supplementation improves brain performance:
a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial.
Caroline Rae, Alison L Digney, Sally R McEwan, and Timothy C Bates
Abstract
Creatine supplementation is in widespread use to enhance sports-
fitness performance, and has been trialled successfully in the
treatment of neurological, neuromuscular and atherosclerotic disease.
Creatine plays a pivotal role in brain energy homeostasis, being a
temporal and spatial buffer for cytosolic and mitochondrial pools of
the cellular energy currency, adenosine triphosphate and its
regulator, adenosine diphosphate. In this work, we tested the
hypothesis that oral creatine supplementation (5 g d(-1) for six
weeks) would enhance intelligence test scores and working memory
performance in 45 young adult, vegetarian subjects in a double-blind,
placebo-controlled, cross-over design. Creatine supplementation had a
significant positive effect (p < 0.0001) on both working memory
(backward digit span) and intelligence (Raven's Advanced Progressive
Matrices), both tasks that require speed of processing. These findings
underline a dynamic and significant role of brain energy capacity in
influencing brain performance.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1691485
http://jtoomim.org/creatine_intelligence.pdf
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Jonathan Toomim <jto...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> [...]In this work, we tested the
> hypothesis that oral creatine supplementation (5 g d(-1) for six
> weeks) would enhance intelligence test scores and working memory
> performance in 45 young adult, VEGETARIAN subjects in a double-blind,
> placebo-controlled, cross-over design.
So, how would this translate to those of us who regularly
eat meat? Do we already get enough creatine? Do we not?
There's another interesting study: Rawson 2008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.05.009 (PDF available &
uploaded)
Abstract: "Creatine supplementation has been reported to improve
certain aspects of cognitive and psychomotor function in older
individuals and in young subjects following 24 and 36 h of sleep
deprivation. However, the effects of creatine supplementation on
cognitive processing and psychomotor performance in non-sleep deprived
young adults have not been assessed with a comprehensive battery of
neurocognitive tests. The primary objective of this study was to
examine the effects of creatine supplementation on cognitive
processing and psychomotor performance in young adults. Twenty-two
subjects (21 ± 2 yr) ingested creatine (0.03 g/kg/day) or placebo for
6 weeks in a double-blind placebo-controlled fashion. Subjects
completed a battery of neurocognitive tests pre- and
post-supplementation, including: simple reaction time (RT), code
substitution (CS), code substitution delayed (CSD), logical reasoning
symbolic (LRS), mathematical processing (MP), running memory (RM), and
Sternberg memory recall (MR). There were no significant effects of
group, no significant effects of time, and no significant group by
time interactions for RT, CS, CSD, LRS, MP, RM, and MR (all p > 0.05),
indicating that there were no differences between creatine and placebo
supplemented groups at any time. These results suggest that six weeks
of creatine supplementation (0.03/g/kg/day) does not improve cognitive
processing in non-sleep deprived young adults. Potentially, creatine
supplementation only improves cognitive processing and psychomotor
performance in individuals who have impaired cognitive processing
abilities."
An interesting area. We have results like:
- Helps elderly
- Helps young sleep-deprived
- Helps young vegetarians (avg. 27)
- Helps the moronic
- Doesn't help young omnivores
On the other hand, the Rawson study notes that they used 0.03 grams of
creatine per subject's kilogram, and given that the creatine subjects
were "73.8±13.6" kg, that means (87.4*0.03=2.622) that even the
heaviest subject was getting only about 2.5 grams, or less than half
Rae's young-vegetarian result and a quarter of the elderly result, and
possibly much less (60.2*0.03=1.806).
But oops, reading further I see the authors already considered that!
"The supplementation protocol used in the current study (0.03 g/kg/
day for 6weeks; ≈2.2 g/day) differs from the protocols used by Rae et
al. (5 g/day for 6 weeks) [14] andWatanabe et al. [15] (8 g/day for 5
days), and may be a factor in our negative findings. Our
supplementation protocolwas based on the seminal paper byHultman et
al. [4] inwhich it was demonstrated that the ingestion of 20 g of
creatine/day for 6 days, 20 g of creatine for 6 days followed by 2
g/day for 28 days, and 3 g of creatine (0.03 g/kg of bodyweight) for
28 days all cause similar increases in muscle total creatine.
Importantly, the majority of supplemental creatine was unabsorbed in
both the high dose loading (17% creatine retained following 20 g of
creatine/day for 6 days) and low dose longer term supplementation
protocols (30% absorbed during the first 14 d and 12% during the final
14 d following 0.03 g of creatine/kg for 28 d) [4]. Given that the
increase inmuscle creatine is directly correlatedwith the improvement
in post-supplementation performance, we believe that our
supplementation protocol provided an adequate amount of creatine.
Also, considering the smallermass of the brain relative to total body
skeletalmuscle mass,we are confident thatwe provided sufficient
creatine to our subjects."
Other interesting quotes:
"Based on the data of McMorris et al. [12,13,16], it is possible that
creatine only has a measureable effect on cognitive processing and
psychomotor performance in individuals who are either permanently
(i.e. disease, aging) or temporarily (i.e. sleep deprivation and
exercise) cognitively impaired. Specifically, creatine may be able to
blunt the decrease in cognitive processing or psychomotor performance
during sleep deprivation, but may not improve cognitive processing or
psychomotor performances in well rested/unstressed individuals."
"It is difficult to explain why our results differ from those of
Watanabe et al. [15] and Rae et al. [14] who also tested their
subjects in an unstressed and rested state. Potentially, the tasks
used by Watanabe et al. [15] and Rae et al. [14] were more cognitively
challenging than those used in the current study, placed a greater
demand on cerebral ATP re-synthesis, and thus produced a measurable
effect from the creatine. This, however, seems unlikely, in that the
tasks used in the current study included complex central executive
tasks, which may require more energy, as well as simpler tasks. Rae et
al. [14] examined the effects of creatine supplementation on brain
performance of vegetarians who are known to have lower plasma [22],
red blood cell [23], and muscle creatine [24]. Because those with the
lowest muscle creatine have the largest increase in muscle and blood
creatine following creatine ingestion, it is possible that the
vegetarian subjects in the study by Rae at al. [14] experienced a
larger increase in brain creatine than subjects in the current study,
who were not vegetarians. Recently Pan and Takahashi [7] demonstrated
that subjects with the lowest initial brain PCr/ATP ratio, as may be
the case with vegetarians, had the greatest increase in brain PCr/ATP
following 7 days of creatine ingestion. This may explain the
differences between our findings and those of Rae et al. [14]."
------
So in general, I think creatine is an interesting approach (and I note
creatine seems to be legal, widely available, and almost as cheap as
melatonin). But the research is rather conflicting!
Any n-backers using creatine? Any interested in starting?
--
gwern
Well, see my other message. Creatine supplements sound kind of hard to
use, though! In the Watanabe study mentioned by Rae (uploaded), the
regimen was:
"Creatine tablets containing 1 g each of creatine monohydrate (Ezaki
Glico, Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) (n /12) or placebo tablets with similar
taste containing no creatine monohydrate (n /12) were randomly
numbered and assigned to the subjects in sealed envelopes so that both
the researchers and the subjects cannot tell which one was given. They
were instructed to take eight tablets per day (8 g creatine
monohydrate per day) four times a day, after meals and before sleep,
for 5 days."
The Rae setup is more reasonable:
"At the end of the first and third test sessions, subjects were given
an envelope marked with their study number and containing 5 g doses of
supplement (creatine monohydrate ((2-methylguanido)acetic acid); Pan
Pharmaceuticals, Australia) or placebo (maltodextrin; Manildra
Starches, Australia) in plastic vials. Subjects were asked to consume
this supplement at the same time each day for the next six weeks and
received advice on how best to take this supplement to ensure maximum
solubility and absorption."
But even a 5-gram pill seems like it might be a little hard to choke down. :)
(On a side note, while looking up creatine, I was amused how many of
the hits were for creatine's apparent utility in beating marijuana
tests.)
--
gwern
Hard to say. They also write:
"We note here that creatine supplementation in vegetarians results in
the same ergonomic increases in muscle performance as it
does in omnivores, despite vegetarians having lower tissue creatine
prior to supplementation (Shomrat et al. 2000)."
Kind of interesting. So vegetarians have significantly lower creatine
levels (the body can synthesize it), but the same doses result in the
same effects as for carnivores/omnivores? One rather wonders if that
carries over to mental performance. The most recent study suggests it
doesn't.
--
gwern
I've seen it work miracles.
> Creatine supplements sound kind of hard to use, though!
You can buy 1 kg jars of creatine monohydrate powder for about $30
either online or at stores like GNC. <http://www.google.com/products?q=creatine
> You take about 5 grams, stir it into a glass of water, and drink
it. It has no taste. I've done it for years. The hardest part about
it is remembering. I'm omnivorous, but I tend to not eat very much
meat because I'm cheap (and I live with hippies). I do think it makes
a difference. I'm more confident that I've noticed effects of
creatine than of DnB.
Side effects: You need to drink a LOT of water, otherwise you'll get
symptoms of dehydration. May cause mild bloating due to increased
water retention. May trigger problems if you have weak kidneys.
Be careful about the creatine ethyl ester stuff. It's advertised as
being better absorbed than the monohydrate. AFAIK, there's no
evidence for that. It also tastes really really nasty, and leaves a
sour film on your teeth for an hour or so. The monohydrate leaves no
such film.
Jonathan
Yes, that seems pretty reasonable. Reading that paper describing the
ANAM, the tasks do seem pretty 'easy'. I could buy an explanation that
the ANAM only catches deficits and errors, but couldn't distinguish
between people performing at a normal level and ones at a somewhat
higher level. One wishes that a tough IQ test had been used by Rawson;
it's problematic to compare Rae's benefits on a Ravens with Rawson's
lack of benefit on ANAM.
> Second, they only used 22 subjects in a non-crossover design. Rae et
> al used 45 subjects and performed crossover design with within-group
> comparisons. The higher subject number increases statistical power by
> roughly a factor of 1.4. The within-subject comparison does much more
> than that, since it provides twice the data per subject with much
> lower noise--for a test with a reliability of 0.8 (the RAPM test-
> retest reliability measures between 0.7 and 0.9), I think that would
> reduce the measurement noise by a factor of about 2.8 (that's [1 / (1
> - 0.8^2)]), which should be equivalent to using about 7.7 times as
> many subjects. In total, if my statistics are correct (and they're
> probably not), this would mean that Rae's crossover design had around
> the same statistical power as a 700-subject non-crossover design.
>
> On the other hand, Rae's results were significant at the p<0.0001
> level. If Rae et al were able to achieve that level of significance
> with a 45 subject crossover design, one would expect a 22 subject non-
> crossover design to at least get to p<0.05. They didn't. The sample
> size compounded with the poor quality of the ANAM and the lower dose
> of creatine could explain it, though.
>
> More information on the ANAM:
>
> http://jtoomim.org/ANAM_corr.png
> http://jtoomim.org/ANAM_construct_validity.pdf
>
> Jonathan
Hm, the statistics is over my head I'm afraid! But all this makes me
eager to try out creatine soon.
Even if it only works well for ameliorating sleep fatigue, I think
there may still be a good combo there: modafinil to keep you awake,
creatine towards the end*, and then melatonin when you're done and are
going to sleep.Something to try, anyway.
* Although I guess creatine would probably be a daily thing, and not
something you take a few hours after the modafinil
--
gwern
I see. Now that I look, most of the products are powder and not pills.
> Side effects: You need to drink a LOT of water, otherwise you'll get
> symptoms of dehydration. May cause mild bloating due to increased
> water retention. May trigger problems if you have weak kidneys.
Heh. I am an inveterate tea drinker, so drinking a lot of water is not
much of a challenge.
> Be careful about the creatine ethyl ester stuff. It's advertised as
> being better absorbed than the monohydrate. AFAIK, there's no
> evidence for that. It also tastes really really nasty, and leaves a
> sour film on your teeth for an hour or so. The monohydrate leaves no
> such film.
>
> Jonathan
OK, thanks for the advice! I guess this will make another good section
for my N-back FAQ, then. At least, creatine seems more popular than
melatonin here...
--
gwern
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Pontus Granström wrote:
> Well I havent taken the mensa.dk test for at least one year.
And what was the score then? (I'd like to add your case to the n-back
faq, but I'm only adding before-after comparisons.)
- --
gwern
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkoVol4ACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oJyRACfZybbe6iu9ivqlmUQva2RVzip
zMUAn1Uaf7mjqR3KK253XxNhoXzLE1oM
=VYrE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
True enough. So far I have 5 examples, and only 1, Crypto's, is a null
result. I wish more people would write about what they see! I don't
know any way around this, though - people who saw results from
N-backing are just more likely to be subscribers who will reply, than
people who saw no benefit.
> And, since you explained that it
> is not unusual to score higher on a culture fair test, because it is
> different than Wechsler's test, you should think it equally natural
> that someone shuld score high on this test and lower on another (is
> not Wechsler's the test on which someone scored 150, after he had
> failed on Mensa's test ) :)
You allude to Lsaul's result, which was indeed on the WAIS. But MR
doesn't tell us what test his <131 score was on, unfortunately - so it
could be that he took the hard culture-neutral one, got a low score,
then took the WAIS and cleaned up thanks to the verbal subtests. The
first one was for Mensa, and I don't know that they use WAIS. (The
thread is http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/browse_thread/thread/8af44f3b20df9904
) So your criticism here is correct.
I don't know whether this could explain a >20 point jump by itself,
but the remainder of the improvement could easily be covered by
different tests, different circumstances, motivation, etc.
--
gwern
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.