Session number: 135
Average n-back: 5.9
Duration (min.): 25
A good day of training and my personal best (up from a previous of 5.8). This session, however, felt far more deserved than the 5.8, which struck me then as a bit of a fluke. This 5.9 was hard won. It would have been nice to hit 6 but I think I am in range now to hit it soon.
Since my last full session a while back (#133) I have been goofing around with BF Pro, usually starting sessions at 2 back, doing a full session, then erasing the session and starting again at 2 back and moving up.
In the interim I also checked out other brain training programs as I let my Mybraintrainer.com monthly membership expire and plan on taking a break from it. The reason being is that I think the exercises there provide a good metric of reaction and inspection time, but I am not sure if training is really going to help me in the areas where I need it. I might rejoin later, and probably will, but do not feel that I need it now.
I have also been thinking about the brain training explosion and have mixed feelings about it. I tried the demo over at posit science and checked out their website and also the demos at cognifit. These exercises are fine as far as they go, but probably are no better than what can be played for free. As far as pure visual spatial practice goes, I know of no other game that beats Tetris.
Re the discussion of benefits from the training: I agree with Shaun that IQ tests (especially professional tests) are likely to be the best way to measure improvement as opposed to relating the observed effect non empirically.
However, IQ is a problematic term because IQ is really not a pure measure of G but some combination or (S)pecial factors as well as the (G)eneral factor. Question is, how much G matters versus special abilities? The answer is that it depends on what your IQ is. If you have an IQ roughly in the 90%ile or higher, it is the special factors that one should seek to develop since they matter most to those who are gifted. If someone has an IQ in 60th percentile, a boost in G would have huge ramifications as far as possibilities opening up on the basis of increase in G alone. It has been my experience that gifted people who care most about IQ differences in the top percentiles are just fascinated with numbers and statistics as they are about real world importance of intellectual ability. Admittedly I am fascinated by these differences, though I realize how trivial the effects of G are at levels above around the top ten percent of the general population. (Some might argue the effects are trivial only at around the top 5 percent).
What is interesting is that the Dual N back may be increasing not only the G factor but also the S factors (such as musical ability as Scott and Martin have reported). There are many special factors — how many is debatable but factors are the sine qua non of giftedness and the improvement of them is not something that psychology spends time on since a lot of these factors cannot be measured independently and factors measured on IQ tests are incapable of *not* picking up the G factor.
This post was submitted by Will.
Tags: Brain Exercises, brain-fitness, brain-fitness-pro, buschkuehl, increase intelligence, increase IQ, intelligence-training, IQ-training, jaeggi, martin-buschkuehl, mind-sparke, susanne-jaeggi, Training Working-Memory, working-memory
Hey Will.
Congratulations on a new high score. Sounds like a very satisfying session.
As always I find your reflections on the broader scope of brain training and intelligence both thoughtful and thought provoking.
My own theory about the dual n-back’s apparent transfer to special skills is that it improves very basic and broadly used brain functions. Working memory and focus come into play to different degrees in pretty much every conscious mental activity. Improving them will therefore have some influence — either minor or more significant — on any task that involves conscious mental activity.
Playing a musical instrument, as a particular instance, requires a very high degree of mindful focus, and puts a big demand on working memory. It requires many other skills, too. So, improving just working memory and focus won’t transform an average musician into a master musician, but it will raise his or her level of ability.
In my own experience since I started training with Brain Fitness Pro I’ve realized that a big part of what held me back as a musician was cognitive overload. Until I’d worked on a piece long enough to fix its patterns in longer term memory I would easily get lost or overwhelmed as I played. Now when I play an unfamiliar piece I can more easily correct myself or think forward to the next set of chords. My overload threshold has risen.
I can also relate this threshold shift in playing music to the higher threshold when trying to figure out how to absorb or present a complex thought. Another great benefit of the training for me. Both seem to derive from the same place.
Martin
I agree with your comments/observations, Martin.
Here’s an excerpt from the Jaeggi study:
“Beyond the psychopharmacology, there is a growing interest in whether computer and video games may increase IQ. But in contrast to suggestive advertisements, there is no empirical evidence that computer games enhance anything beyond task-specific performance (13, 14) and selective visuospatial attention (15).”
There has been some empirical evidence. For instance, playing Tetris has been shown to reduce glucose metabolic rate in the PFC after practicing on it; so this is consistent with brain efficiency theory viz. that smarter brains use less glucose in problem solving (but, the opposite is shown to be true on the hardest of all problems on the RAPM, where high ability individuals use up more glucose than the low ability group). Still, all this aside, I take their point; I’m not sure that the brain training programs really do much more than the vast majority of task-specific enhancing video games. Why I am so impressed with Tetris is because in addition to the visual spatial requirements, there’s also a planning aspect involved where the player has to think ahead of where to fit the oncoming piece. This sort of planning is an example of executive function that seems generalizable (albeit not as generalizable as the dual n-back).
The authors also write:
“Although working memory capacity and Gf may share common
variance, they are far from being isomorphic (26, 27). That
is, there are factors other than working memory capacity contributing
to individual differences in Gf.”
This gets to the heart of what I would want to know. What other aspects of executive functions (although likewise not isomorphic but share a level of variance) if improved, would lead to an increase of Gf? I posited Tetris as a good game since planning is an executive function which I think would then be generalizable to Gf (with overlapping demands), as well as a task which improves the specific ability to rotate objects spatially in one’s mind (Sf, if such a thing could exist).
The reason for my interest is I’ve been willing to do all the different games and yet only have so much time. The dual n-back is a great task for the long term training because the practice effect is more or less nil once you get the hang of it. The only way to improve at the high n levels is to be adept with updating and storage, which requires an enormous amount of concentration and therefore, Gf. Likewise, Tetris is a game that perhaps has more of a specific function than the dual n-back but might have some overlapping demands between EF and Gf.
At this time, I’d recommend only 2 games for IQ improvement and I’ve tried quite a few:
Dual n-back (either free or $46)
Tetris. (Free).
I’m not saying all the products out there are snake oil, or fruits of smoke and mirror marketing magicians, but I’m getting more and more tough in how I assess these things. Americans spend money on so much dumb stuff as it is (I’m American;-) that brain training is certainly not the worst thing to throw $ at; but it’s such a nascent industry that caveat emptor is akin to a neon sign flashing in bright red everywhere I click.
Engage dopamine plasticity in five weeks:
Training working memory at or near capacity enhances working memory and changes the brain. To investigate how dopamine levels relate to working memory, scientist recruited thirteen participants to ardently train their minds for 35 minutes per day over five weeks. Measures of both verbal and spatial working memory, along with brain scans using fMRI and PET technology, demonstrated that each participant enhanced his or her working memory, and that the enhancement related to changes in dopamine brain chemistry. Not only did the participants train their minds, but they also changed their brains. (McNab, 2009)
Source: McNab, F., et al. (2009). Changes in cortical dopamine D1 recepta binding associated with cognitive training. In Science Magazine, 6 February 2009, v323, no.5915, pp800-802. USA.
The tetris submission was interesting as I assume that it has an effect on dopamine levels levels d n b. Just because it is addictive, but the highs at the end of the games are differant telling me that the d n b has a stronger more lasting effect.