5 ms·

I was under the impression that Dual-n-Back[0] had real benefits. Is that not the case? [0] http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/ http://brainworkshop.sourcefo

by bberrry 11y ago

I was under the impression that Dual-n-Back[0] had real benefits. Is that not the case? [0] http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/ http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

w1ntermute 11y ago
Gwern's done extensive research into this, and his meta-analysis has shown there's "a net gain (medium-sized) on the post-training IQ tests"[0, 1]. 0: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis 1: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  Why is this downvoted? I was under the impression that Gwern did solid resarch and was well respected in the HN community.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - iaw 11y ago
    Because JumpCrisscross's post [0] implies that w1ntermute cherry picked a component of the Gwern meta-analysis to prove his point while the next paragraph refuted it. [0] : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846443
- ryanferg 11y ago
  This is really great! I'll have to look into this when I have a little while. Thanks for passing it on. Just on a glance, I disagree that it really shows much of an increase though. Just glancing at the forest plots of those effect sizes tells me that this isn't a very strong effect at all (if it's there). And there is also the so called 'file drawer' effect. I was at one of the big cog psych conferences a few years ago when a colleague was asking around -'Do you have any failed to replicates for WM training?' Everyone was so excited with the original Jaeggi 2008 paper, went out and tried it, and had a tough time replicating what turned out to be a severely flawed study.
  - ryanferg 11y ago
    Not to say that I'm not open to the idea. I'd love for it to be true, I just think large-effect-size effects are not often mired in the controversy that this one is. They're hard to find.
- JumpCrisscross 11y ago
  Literally the next paragraph: "The size of this increase on IQ test score correlates highly with the methodological concern of whether a study used active or passive control groups. This indicates that the medium effect size is due to methodological problems and that n-back training does not increase subjects’ underlying fluid intelligence but the gains are due to the motivational effect of passive control groups (who did not train on anything) not trying as hard as the n-back-trained experimental groups on the post-tests. The remaining studies using active control groups find a small positive effect (but this may be due to matrix-test-specific training, undetected publication bias, smaller motivational effects, etc.)" http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis#analysis http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis#analysis
ryanferg 11y ago
So it definitely transfers 'near'. You'll get better at the dual-n-back test. And possibly other visio-spatial working memory tests. But the question of far transfer- will it make you smarter- is probably not. Here is a link to a 2015 meta-analysis that looks at the question of working memory training (including dual-n-backs) transferring to other working memory tasks: https://www.dropbox.com/s/084fvteji1tyz8t/2015-schwaighofer.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/084fvteji1tyz8t/2015-schwaighofer.... Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2013, is also pretty damning.
- cLeEOGPw 11y ago
  That's exactly, if my understanding of changes happening to brain while performing any activity in general is correct, what should happen - you get better at doing that activity. So, unless your work contains some kind of dual-n-back activity, you are not getting better at it. You get better at work by doing work, not by playing brain game. I am really happy they got fined for this deception.
cant_kant 11y ago
From a meta-analysis: " The 20 studies included here were all completed between 2008 and 2013....Sample sizes of treatment groups varied between 7 and 36 participants, and control groups between 8 and 43" "net effect of n-back training on Gf outcome measures, about the equivalent of 3–4 points on a standardized IQ test" ie: very small groups, tiny effect. Sounds dubious to me, like much research in the social "sciences" Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory:a meta-analysis http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/au-et-al2014_nback-training-gf-meta-analysis.pdf http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/au-e...
- freehunter 11y ago
  Considering the standard deviation for IQ is 15 points, I wouldn't drink an extra glass of water per day for another 3-4 IQ points, let alone play a training game for any extended amount of time. 3-4 points is statistically meaningless.
  - cant_kant 11y ago
    "Considering the standard deviation for IQ is 15 points" The standard deviation for the distribution of IQ is 15 points. The standard deviation of the errors of measurement associated with measuring IQ is 3 points.( ie: the standard error of measurement aka SEM) I would be willing to have 3 fingers of my left hand ( not including my thumb ) amputated to improve my IQ by 1 standard deviation. For more on Standard Error of Measurement, see http://www.csus.edu/indiv/b/brocks/Courses/EDS%20245/Handouts/Standard%20Error%20of%20Measurement.ITEM.pdf http://www.csus.edu/indiv/b/brocks/Courses/EDS%20245/Handout...
    - cbd1984 11y ago
      That link is a PDF.
    - corndoge 11y ago
      What is your point? The parent made no error in his language. The inferred meaning of 'standard deviation' in this context is 'standard deviation for distribution'. The parent referred to an improvement of 3-4 IQ points, not standard deviations.

by bberrry 11y ago

I was under the impression that Dual-n-Back[0] had real benefits. Is that not the case? [0] http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/ http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

w1ntermute 11y ago

Gwern's done extensive research into this, and his meta-analysis has shown there's "a net gain (medium-sized) on the post-training IQ tests"[0, 1]. 0: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis 1: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
Why is this downvoted? I was under the impression that Gwern did solid resarch and was well respected in the HN community.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- iaw 11y ago
  Because JumpCrisscross's post [0] implies that w1ntermute cherry picked a component of the Gwern meta-analysis to prove his point while the next paragraph refuted it. [0] : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846443
ryanferg 11y ago
This is really great! I'll have to look into this when I have a little while. Thanks for passing it on. Just on a glance, I disagree that it really shows much of an increase though. Just glancing at the forest plots of those effect sizes tells me that this isn't a very strong effect at all (if it's there). And there is also the so called 'file drawer' effect. I was at one of the big cog psych conferences a few years ago when a colleague was asking around -'Do you have any failed to replicates for WM training?' Everyone was so excited with the original Jaeggi 2008 paper, went out and tried it, and had a tough time replicating what turned out to be a severely flawed study.
- ryanferg 11y ago
  Not to say that I'm not open to the idea. I'd love for it to be true, I just think large-effect-size effects are not often mired in the controversy that this one is. They're hard to find.
JumpCrisscross 11y ago
Literally the next paragraph: "The size of this increase on IQ test score correlates highly with the methodological concern of whether a study used active or passive control groups. This indicates that the medium effect size is due to methodological problems and that n-back training does not increase subjects’ underlying fluid intelligence but the gains are due to the motivational effect of passive control groups (who did not train on anything) not trying as hard as the n-back-trained experimental groups on the post-tests. The remaining studies using active control groups find a small positive effect (but this may be due to matrix-test-specific training, undetected publication bias, smaller motivational effects, etc.)" http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis#analysis http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis#analysis

ryanferg 11y ago

So it definitely transfers 'near'. You'll get better at the dual-n-back test. And possibly other visio-spatial working memory tests. But the question of far transfer- will it make you smarter- is probably not. Here is a link to a 2015 meta-analysis that looks at the question of working memory training (including dual-n-backs) transferring to other working memory tasks: https://www.dropbox.com/s/084fvteji1tyz8t/2015-schwaighofer.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/084fvteji1tyz8t/2015-schwaighofer.... Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2013, is also pretty damning.

cLeEOGPw 11y ago
That's exactly, if my understanding of changes happening to brain while performing any activity in general is correct, what should happen - you get better at doing that activity. So, unless your work contains some kind of dual-n-back activity, you are not getting better at it. You get better at work by doing work, not by playing brain game. I am really happy they got fined for this deception.

cant_kant 11y ago

From a meta-analysis: " The 20 studies included here were all completed between 2008 and 2013....Sample sizes of treatment groups varied between 7 and 36 participants, and control groups between 8 and 43" "net effect of n-back training on Gf outcome measures, about the equivalent of 3–4 points on a standardized IQ test" ie: very small groups, tiny effect. Sounds dubious to me, like much research in the social "sciences" Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory:a meta-analysis http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/au-et-al2014_nback-training-gf-meta-analysis.pdf http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/au-e...

freehunter 11y ago
Considering the standard deviation for IQ is 15 points, I wouldn't drink an extra glass of water per day for another 3-4 IQ points, let alone play a training game for any extended amount of time. 3-4 points is statistically meaningless.
- cant_kant 11y ago
  "Considering the standard deviation for IQ is 15 points" The standard deviation for the distribution of IQ is 15 points. The standard deviation of the errors of measurement associated with measuring IQ is 3 points.( ie: the standard error of measurement aka SEM) I would be willing to have 3 fingers of my left hand ( not including my thumb ) amputated to improve my IQ by 1 standard deviation. For more on Standard Error of Measurement, see http://www.csus.edu/indiv/b/brocks/Courses/EDS%20245/Handouts/Standard%20Error%20of%20Measurement.ITEM.pdf http://www.csus.edu/indiv/b/brocks/Courses/EDS%20245/Handout...
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    That link is a PDF.
  - corndoge 11y ago
    What is your point? The parent made no error in his language. The inferred meaning of 'standard deviation' in this context is 'standard deviation for distribution'. The parent referred to an improvement of 3-4 IQ points, not standard deviations.