Dual N back level = what approximate IQ?
I can only get to level 4. Dual'n'back sadly only estimates visual and auditory memory and processing speed.
Therefore the conversion can't be taken at the same value as a full electic assessment. I've scored only about 110 in these categories on the official iq test, but 170 on the verbal portion.
Wish I could trade that for a mathematical iq or something useful!
Therefore the conversion can't be taken at the same value as a full electic assessment. I've scored only about 110 in these categories on the official iq test, but 170 on the verbal portion.
Wish I could trade that for a mathematical iq or something useful!
? | 7 days ago
Reply
This estimation of the Dual N-back to IQ is pretty interesting. I've taken a bunch of IQ tests online and I have an IQ of about 125-135( obv. I'm not included the really easy IQ tests).
Anyways, using MindSparke Brain Fitness Pro, I average about N= 5.4. I'd say this is a pretty decent prediction. I'd like to see a study on the issue
Anyways, using MindSparke Brain Fitness Pro, I average about N= 5.4. I'd say this is a pretty decent prediction. I'd like to see a study on the issue
? | 2 years ago
Reply
My IQ is about 125, and I am having trouble getting above 4.2, so I'm guess that the N and IQ correlation suggested here is pretty accurate!
? | 1 year ago
Reply
? | 1 year ago
Reply
My message got cut due to the greater than symbol. So let me repeat: I've seen a chap with a 135 or so IQ working on D10B and higher. At that level, it's just a mechanical skill that doesn't tax intelligence.
? | 1 year ago
Reply
The task is meant to improve intelligence. So maybe it was 135 when he first took it. It has obviously improved. Isn't that the whole point of the task.
? | 4 months ago
Reply
Dual N back level = what approximate IQ?
I'm curious to know opinions on what N level equals what level of IQ? I realize that working memory does not equal the g factor as there's more to intelligence than wm (despite some research that ties it closely).
But I imagine that the IQ/N-back correlation would probably be strong after one has been at the dual N back training for a while but probably not a strong correlation for the first month or so of playing.
My guess is, to even be able to play the game, requires about 100 IQ...though I'm sure more work from Jaeggi and others will shed light on who can benefit from the training versus those who'd be unable to benefit out of sheer frustration with it.
This is a guess is based on the little I know of people who've reported scores and who have been at the dual n back for a while...but I might be way off since this is not based on score pairing, but just educated guessing. I hope there is some work done on the dual n back and IQ in the future, god knows there has been a lot of research done on IQ and reaction time and inspection time. Here is a rough estimate (open to any revision):
N=2 100
N=3 110
N=4 120
N=5 130
N=6 140
N=7 150
N=8 ?? (correlation between N level and IQ probably breaks down at this level).
But I imagine that the IQ/N-back correlation would probably be strong after one has been at the dual N back training for a while but probably not a strong correlation for the first month or so of playing.
My guess is, to even be able to play the game, requires about 100 IQ...though I'm sure more work from Jaeggi and others will shed light on who can benefit from the training versus those who'd be unable to benefit out of sheer frustration with it.
This is a guess is based on the little I know of people who've reported scores and who have been at the dual n back for a while...but I might be way off since this is not based on score pairing, but just educated guessing. I hope there is some work done on the dual n back and IQ in the future, god knows there has been a lot of research done on IQ and reaction time and inspection time. Here is a rough estimate (open to any revision):
N=2 100
N=3 110
N=4 120
N=5 130
N=6 140
N=7 150
N=8 ?? (correlation between N level and IQ probably breaks down at this level).
milestones | 3 years ago
Reply
I don't think this is how it works. It may improve ur intelligence once u keep practicing it.
I've practiced for bout 30 days straight and averaged at bout 6. I've noticed I was a bit quicker, but no IQ tests to prove it.
Anyway, 10 months later I started practicing it again and after 4 days I've reached average 7.
My IQ is definetely not 150. I'm not saying I'm stupid but 150 is just too high.
It's about practice not score, i guess
I've practiced for bout 30 days straight and averaged at bout 6. I've noticed I was a bit quicker, but no IQ tests to prove it.
Anyway, 10 months later I started practicing it again and after 4 days I've reached average 7.
My IQ is definetely not 150. I'm not saying I'm stupid but 150 is just too high.
It's about practice not score, i guess
GHzXx | 3 weeks ago
Reply
Agreed. I've been playing for a couple years on and off and am up to triple 9-back. I am many things. A genius is not one of them.
tsunnergren | 2 weeks ago
Reply
reached N=8 today. for color: I'm at a top 4 ivy, double majoring in quantitative disciplines, top 20-30% of class
? | 4 weeks ago
Reply
Got 104 IQ at http://www.iqout.com/tulos.php
Seems to be a pretty accurate test
I am consistently at N=6 at kpst DNB,and occasionally at N=7 after about 12 days of playing.
So judge for yourself.
Seems to be a pretty accurate test
I am consistently at N=6 at kpst DNB,and occasionally at N=7 after about 12 days of playing.
So judge for yourself.
1A2B3C | 6 months ago
Reply
? | 1 year ago
Reply
? | 8 months ago
Reply
There is no correlation between n back levels and intelligence. Why would i say its 88 after the training, when i didnt say what the score was before? :p as you see, my intelligence is measured to be 88( To your info, before i started training) Excuse my bad language, english is not my mother language..
chrispo | 2 weeks ago
Reply
A well-established model created by the Erlangen School in germany claims that intelligence is a function involving the speed of information processing and the memory span. If this is so, than we are to suspect that increasing the component "speed of information processing" would boost intelligence, as well as we can suspect that increasing the component "memory span" would boost it.
So I think there is no exact correlation between IQ and N-Level, because even if we know the value "memory span" of an invidual's brain, we have no knowledge of the value "speed of information processing" of it.
So I think there is no exact correlation between IQ and N-Level, because even if we know the value "memory span" of an invidual's brain, we have no knowledge of the value "speed of information processing" of it.
? | 1 year ago
Reply
Well, if you read the original paper, you'll see that gains in Gf are not necessarily correlated to gains in N. Factors other than working memory capacity are also also responsible for gains in Gf, per the original paper.
Also, N level does not necessarily correlate with IQ, per the original paper.
Also, N level does not necessarily correlate with IQ, per the original paper.
? | 2 years ago
Reply
Seems to fit. I've worked up to 7-back and have an estimated IQ of 156. But I'm a drop in a very, very large tub.
All bets are off considering that constant improvement at n-back training entails an increase in gF. Any sort of correlation thus is doomed to be temporary, it seems. I mean, why should we start tabulating after a month, two, three?
More studies need to be conducted. For instance, at what point does dual n-back improvement drop or stop?
And what of other n-back variants?
All bets are off considering that constant improvement at n-back training entails an increase in gF. Any sort of correlation thus is doomed to be temporary, it seems. I mean, why should we start tabulating after a month, two, three?
More studies need to be conducted. For instance, at what point does dual n-back improvement drop or stop?
And what of other n-back variants?
? | 3 years ago
Reply
But I imagine that the IQ/N-back correlation would probably be strong after one has been at the dual N back training for a while but probably not a strong correlation for the first month or so of playing.
Actually, ignoring the transferable gains of the test that come with practice and simply viewing it as a measure, or correlate, of general intelligence, the opposite would probably be true. A practice effect, cause by repeated exposure, on any test tends to undermine its reliability as a predictor of IQ. From this standpoint, in order to predict IQ from the dual n-back task, it would probably be better to compare the accuracy on the first few trials among participants. General intelligence, as I understand it, tends to be a better predictor of how quickly one adapts to new material, not how efficient one becomes with practice; anyone can ace an IQ test if they practice enough of them. Of course, this is just my opinion, and I'm obviously leaving out a lot of details due to both lack of information and time. In other words, this is a very rough estimate of my (slight) understanding of the matter.
Actually, ignoring the transferable gains of the test that come with practice and simply viewing it as a measure, or correlate, of general intelligence, the opposite would probably be true. A practice effect, cause by repeated exposure, on any test tends to undermine its reliability as a predictor of IQ. From this standpoint, in order to predict IQ from the dual n-back task, it would probably be better to compare the accuracy on the first few trials among participants. General intelligence, as I understand it, tends to be a better predictor of how quickly one adapts to new material, not how efficient one becomes with practice; anyone can ace an IQ test if they practice enough of them. Of course, this is just my opinion, and I'm obviously leaving out a lot of details due to both lack of information and time. In other words, this is a very rough estimate of my (slight) understanding of the matter.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
IQ probably has an equal hand in both effectiveness of first performances and the ceiling of potential improvement (after practice).
cevapcici | 3 years ago
Reply
milestones | 3 years ago
Reply
is the n-back still a valid measure of WMC after months of practice? or at least, does it correlate with WMC?
don't know. maybe?
the answer to this question will help you answer your own.
don't know. maybe?
the answer to this question will help you answer your own.
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
The answer to that would probably be yes if training reflects actual working memory gains (no matter how long one trains for) but no if the training reflects greater use of strategy, which I think might happen at very high N levels. But it might be the concentration to maintain extremely high n back levels relates to differences in wm capacity somehow.
There has been work done on ECT's that shows that a far higher correlation exists after practicing the task for about 60 days than with no practice at all. Assuming the dual n back fits into this model, then this jibes with my impression of what happens to most people who work up to their N back level and then hit a plateau after around 2 months of training. (The levels of IQ to N back I tossed out indicate an average N back after 19 sessions and not the highest n back level one has reached).
This is speculative...
There has been work done on ECT's that shows that a far higher correlation exists after practicing the task for about 60 days than with no practice at all. Assuming the dual n back fits into this model, then this jibes with my impression of what happens to most people who work up to their N back level and then hit a plateau after around 2 months of training. (The levels of IQ to N back I tossed out indicate an average N back after 19 sessions and not the highest n back level one has reached).
This is speculative...
milestones | 3 years ago
Reply
strategy does indeed play a role at higher n-levels from my experience
if one becomes capable of creating larger chunks (via use of a strategy), to what extent would this not accurately reflect a larger WMC?
chunks would have to get de-chunked eventually and updated on-the-fly, requiring an extensive central executive
in this regard, n-back differs greatly from span tests
if one becomes capable of creating larger chunks (via use of a strategy), to what extent would this not accurately reflect a larger WMC?
chunks would have to get de-chunked eventually and updated on-the-fly, requiring an extensive central executive
in this regard, n-back differs greatly from span tests
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
"if one becomes capable of creating larger chunks (via use of a strategy), to what extent would this not accurately reflect a larger WMC?"
Abstract from the 2007 Jaeggi study addresses this question:
"What happens in the brain when we reach or exceed our capacity limits? Are there individual differences for performance at capacity limits? We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the impact of increases in processing demand on selected cortical areas when participants performed a parametrically varied and challenging dual task. Low-performing participants respond with large and load-dependent activation increases in many cortical areas when exposed to excessive task requirements, accompanied by decreasing performance. It seems that these participants recruit additional attentional and strategy-related resources with increasing difficulty, which are either not relevant or even detrimental to performance. In contrast, the brains of the high-performing participants "keep cool" in terms of activation changes, despite continuous correct performance, reflecting different and more efficient processing. These findings shed light on the differential implications of performance on activation patterns and underline the importance of the interindividual-differences approach in neuroimaging research."
To what extent this ability to "keep cool" can be trained to the under-performers remains a question for further research.
Abstract from the 2007 Jaeggi study addresses this question:
"What happens in the brain when we reach or exceed our capacity limits? Are there individual differences for performance at capacity limits? We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the impact of increases in processing demand on selected cortical areas when participants performed a parametrically varied and challenging dual task. Low-performing participants respond with large and load-dependent activation increases in many cortical areas when exposed to excessive task requirements, accompanied by decreasing performance. It seems that these participants recruit additional attentional and strategy-related resources with increasing difficulty, which are either not relevant or even detrimental to performance. In contrast, the brains of the high-performing participants "keep cool" in terms of activation changes, despite continuous correct performance, reflecting different and more efficient processing. These findings shed light on the differential implications of performance on activation patterns and underline the importance of the interindividual-differences approach in neuroimaging research."
To what extent this ability to "keep cool" can be trained to the under-performers remains a question for further research.
milestones | 3 years ago
Reply
Phenomenologically speaking, the ability to "keep cool" seems to entail a certain calm and clarity of focus. I've noticed through my efforts that my best scores have been attained by way of a lack of intensity in my concentration; the information collects in my mind easily without any stress and strain and is present very readily when a response must be given. When I am faced with more information than I am accustomed, I sense a certain unease come over me, and then the information begins to lose its structure and vividness in my head, but the more I keep at it, the more settled I am in my position. Following this, I am not so sure keeping cool is a trainable feature as it is a temperamental one that is grown through accumulated practice in certain individuals predisposed to that manner of internal organization. There is, however, the fact that myelination in my brain has yet to be completed which may confound my personal experience in untold ways.
argumzio | 3 years ago
Reply
it should just be operant conditioning; the scores are your "rewards" or "punishments"
this could be like half-assed neurofeedback if you made the effort to train "coolness"
this could be like half-assed neurofeedback if you made the effort to train "coolness"
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
Good point. But from time to time I prefer to consult my highly individualized experiences rather than the generalized applicability of certain psychological concepts. To get at the actual state of things, I think it is useful. I wouldn't contend with the idea that it is operant conditioning at work; however, what the actual process entails, involves, and means could provide some sort of clue to understanding it better. If it were wholly explicable according to operant conditioning, then it would not suffice to explain why there is such variability in my scores and the peculiar events that I notice inside my head when everything "clicks", if you will. The scores are guides; they do not necessarily lead to an adequate description of what is happening to you, me, or whomever when engaging the task.
argumzio | 3 years ago
Reply
Fascinating. I just now scored 100% on 8-back and it is exactly as I had written it above.
Perhaps I have merely discovered my own technique.
Perhaps I have merely discovered my own technique.
argumzio | 3 years ago
Reply
cevapcici | 3 years ago
Reply
assuming they are correlated...
bet you blokes at the higher n levels are basking in your newfound glory, aren't you?
but let us remember the original study only pointed to fluid intel, not the general factor
bet you blokes at the higher n levels are basking in your newfound glory, aren't you?
but let us remember the original study only pointed to fluid intel, not the general factor
? | 3 years ago
Reply
Here are two links on the debate about WM versus reaction time: The first by Conway et al., which is pro WM as a basis for G: Here's an excerpt and link to the abstract explaining why reaction time (or more broadly mental speed) is an insufficient
causal mechanism of G. I found the excerpt on the reaction time of monkeys Washburn & Rumbaugh, 1997)! Note, however, that the macaque intraspecies correlations between RT and a commonly employed measure of non-human "intelligence" are negative and similar in magnitude to those in the human literature (with r's ranging from -.44 to -.61). No monkey advantage over humans is ever found in WMC or short-term memory tasks. Clearly, these RT results should give pause to anyone proposing to rank intelligence of human races by "cognitive speed."
Jensen's response to this research:
Link:
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.038
causal mechanism of G. I found the excerpt on the reaction time of monkeys Washburn & Rumbaugh, 1997)! Note, however, that the macaque intraspecies correlations between RT and a commonly employed measure of non-human "intelligence" are negative and similar in magnitude to those in the human literature (with r's ranging from -.44 to -.61). No monkey advantage over humans is ever found in WMC or short-term memory tasks. Clearly, these RT results should give pause to anyone proposing to rank intelligence of human races by "cognitive speed."
Jensen's response to this research:
Link:
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.038
milestones | 3 years ago
Reply
mental speed (IT) indicates the speed of an elementary cognitive process.
monkeys brains are not capable of performing the complex processes that humans' brains are (supposedly)
there is no legitimate inter-species comparison regarding mental speed.
monkey's speed can only compare to other monkeys.
speed is valuable, but less valuable than capacity, since incorrect conclusions (no matter how quickly they are drawn) must be revised eventually.
+WM - more consecutive correct conclusions
+MS - more conclusions per unit time
g - correlates most highly with correct conclusions per unit time.
monkeys brains are not capable of performing the complex processes that humans' brains are (supposedly)
there is no legitimate inter-species comparison regarding mental speed.
monkey's speed can only compare to other monkeys.
speed is valuable, but less valuable than capacity, since incorrect conclusions (no matter how quickly they are drawn) must be revised eventually.
+WM - more consecutive correct conclusions
+MS - more conclusions per unit time
g - correlates most highly with correct conclusions per unit time.
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
"speed is valuable, but less valuable than capacity, since incorrect conclusions (no matter how quickly they are drawn) must be revised eventually."
Not altogether irrefutable, perhaps. As aspects of human intelligence this type of valuation may function with a respectively or relatively certain level of bias toward speed;--re. past evolutionary progressions. Speed may in fact be a more sensitive and thus more important variable than the capacity, as it extends, typically,--thus today.
Not altogether irrefutable, perhaps. As aspects of human intelligence this type of valuation may function with a respectively or relatively certain level of bias toward speed;--re. past evolutionary progressions. Speed may in fact be a more sensitive and thus more important variable than the capacity, as it extends, typically,--thus today.
? | 1 year ago
Reply
Intelligence. 2009 Mar 1;37(2):207-222.
When less is more and when more is more: The mediating roles of capacity and speed in brain-behavior efficiency.
Rypma B, Prabhakaran V.
School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences and Center for Brain Health, University of Texas at Dallas.
An enduring enterprise of experimental psychology has been to account for individual differences in human performance. Recent advances in neuroimaging have permitted testing of hypotheses regarding the neural bases of individual differences but this burgeoning literature has been characterized by inconsistent results. We argue that careful design and analysis of neuroimaging studies is required to separate individual differences in processing capacity from individual differences in processing speed to account for these differences in the literature. We utilized task designs which permitted separation of processing capacity influences on brain-behavior relationships from those related to processing speed. In one set of studies, participants performed verbal delayed-recognition tasks during blocked and event-related fMRI scanning. The results indicated that those participants with greater working memory (WM) capacity showed greater prefrontal cortical activity, strategically capitalized on the additional processing time available in the delay period, and evinced faster WM-retrieval rates than low-capacity participants. In another study, participants performed a digit-symbol substitution task (DSST) designed to minimize WM storage capacity requirements and maximize processing speed requirements during fMRI scanning. In some prefrontal cortical (PFC) brain regions, participants with faster processing speed showed less PFC activity than slower performers while in other PFC and parietal regions they showed greater activity. Regional-causality analysis indicated that PFC exerted more influence over other brain regions for slower than for faster individuals. These results support a model of neural efficiency in which individuals differ in the extent of direct processing links between neural nodes. One benefit of direct processing links may be a surplus of resources that maximize available capacity permitting fast and accurate performance.
the capacity-speed substrate is enmeshed with pfc functioning.
fascinating, but what conclusion to draw?
When less is more and when more is more: The mediating roles of capacity and speed in brain-behavior efficiency.
Rypma B, Prabhakaran V.
School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences and Center for Brain Health, University of Texas at Dallas.
An enduring enterprise of experimental psychology has been to account for individual differences in human performance. Recent advances in neuroimaging have permitted testing of hypotheses regarding the neural bases of individual differences but this burgeoning literature has been characterized by inconsistent results. We argue that careful design and analysis of neuroimaging studies is required to separate individual differences in processing capacity from individual differences in processing speed to account for these differences in the literature. We utilized task designs which permitted separation of processing capacity influences on brain-behavior relationships from those related to processing speed. In one set of studies, participants performed verbal delayed-recognition tasks during blocked and event-related fMRI scanning. The results indicated that those participants with greater working memory (WM) capacity showed greater prefrontal cortical activity, strategically capitalized on the additional processing time available in the delay period, and evinced faster WM-retrieval rates than low-capacity participants. In another study, participants performed a digit-symbol substitution task (DSST) designed to minimize WM storage capacity requirements and maximize processing speed requirements during fMRI scanning. In some prefrontal cortical (PFC) brain regions, participants with faster processing speed showed less PFC activity than slower performers while in other PFC and parietal regions they showed greater activity. Regional-causality analysis indicated that PFC exerted more influence over other brain regions for slower than for faster individuals. These results support a model of neural efficiency in which individuals differ in the extent of direct processing links between neural nodes. One benefit of direct processing links may be a surplus of resources that maximize available capacity permitting fast and accurate performance.
the capacity-speed substrate is enmeshed with pfc functioning.
fascinating, but what conclusion to draw?
medicalstudent | 2 years ago
Reply
"Regional-causality analysis indicated that PFC exerted more influence over other brain regions for slower than for faster individuals. These results support a model of neural efficiency in which individuals differ in the extent of direct processing links between neural nodes."
Does this imply-that the PFC is a reference for the distribution of neural nodes?
Does this imply-that the PFC is a reference for the distribution of neural nodes?
? | 2 years ago
Reply
? | 2 years ago
Reply
Is the PFC responsible for directing disparate neural nodes to work together? Less PFC means nodes can work together with less "direction," is that correct?
? | 2 years ago
Reply
The PFC is connected to every other region of the brain, including the brainstem and limbic system.
PFC activation arises in circumstances that require originality, inhibition, control, moderation, and other "soft" aspects of cognition.
Paraphrasing Wikipedia: Several studies show that reduced volume and interconnections of the frontal lobes with other brain regions arises in those with schizophrenia, depression, people subjected to repeated stressors, suicide victims, incarcerated criminals, sociopaths, and drug addicts.
Thus, greater PFC activation and volume indicates a greater level of intracortical activity, leading to a theoretical surplus of sophisticated, higher-order processing. This only truly applies to adults and not children, though, since children are at a stage of undirected learning, that is, absorbing many details of their environment that will be utilized later in life.
PFC activation arises in circumstances that require originality, inhibition, control, moderation, and other "soft" aspects of cognition.
Paraphrasing Wikipedia: Several studies show that reduced volume and interconnections of the frontal lobes with other brain regions arises in those with schizophrenia, depression, people subjected to repeated stressors, suicide victims, incarcerated criminals, sociopaths, and drug addicts.
Thus, greater PFC activation and volume indicates a greater level of intracortical activity, leading to a theoretical surplus of sophisticated, higher-order processing. This only truly applies to adults and not children, though, since children are at a stage of undirected learning, that is, absorbing many details of their environment that will be utilized later in life.
? | 2 years ago
Reply
? | 2 years ago
Reply
Uh... wrong.
"The results indicated that those participants with greater working memory (WM) capacity showed greater prefrontal cortical activity, strategically capitalized on the additional processing time available in the delay period, and evinced faster WM-retrieval rates than low-capacity participants."
And the slower individuals are the one's who have the greater PFC activation and greater WM capacity. You can be as quick as a fly, but you can't be as smart as a human.
"The results indicated that those participants with greater working memory (WM) capacity showed greater prefrontal cortical activity, strategically capitalized on the additional processing time available in the delay period, and evinced faster WM-retrieval rates than low-capacity participants."
And the slower individuals are the one's who have the greater PFC activation and greater WM capacity. You can be as quick as a fly, but you can't be as smart as a human.
? | 2 years ago
Reply
"In some prefrontal cortical (PFC) brain regions, participants with faster processing speed showed less PFC activity"
"PFC exerted more influence over other brain regions for slower"
Weep
"PFC exerted more influence over other brain regions for slower"
Weep
? | 2 years ago
Reply
"while in other PFC and parietal regions they showed greater activity"
I think it means that their (faster) brains work in order to receive less direction from the PFC and that their PFC is activated more efficiently, with heightened potential. Notice a smaller area of the PFC is activated.
I think it means that their (faster) brains work in order to receive less direction from the PFC and that their PFC is activated more efficiently, with heightened potential. Notice a smaller area of the PFC is activated.
? | 2 years ago
Reply
You seem not to understand that less PFC activity is a bad thing. Let me try to hammer this into your thick skull: less PFC -> faster perceptual processing & lesser WM capacity.
My focus has been on those who are the opposite to this. If you don't understand this, then you can go immolate yourself with your mouse.
My focus has been on those who are the opposite to this. If you don't understand this, then you can go immolate yourself with your mouse.
? | 2 years ago
Reply
cyberiad | 1 year ago
Reply
cyberiad | 1 year ago
Reply
On second thought, slaving away at analogies in order to get into prometheus would be a massive waste of my time.
"Indeed. Slaving away at other problems without a guaranteed reward, however, isn't."
hah forgot about my act score
Keep talking shit. My IQ is through the roof.
Slow-witted Philistines...
*subhumans (seriously)
"Indeed. Slaving away at other problems without a guaranteed reward, however, isn't."
hah forgot about my act score
Keep talking shit. My IQ is through the roof.
Slow-witted Philistines...
*subhumans (seriously)
cyberiad | 1 year ago
Reply
cyberiad | 1 year ago
Reply
cyberiad | 1 year ago
Reply
cyberiad | 1 year ago
Reply
On second thought, slaving away at analogies in order to get into prometheus would be a massive waste of my time.
cyberiad | 1 year ago
Reply
Re: I was about to apply to mensa but apparently I didn't even take the wais. It was some obscure aptitude/achievement test. I actually landed in the 99th overall and got ceiling scores on the verbal sections. I'm probably going to take the miller analogies test within a year to see how high I can score. The mat is also accepted by triple nine, prometheus, ect.
cyberiad | 1 year ago
Reply
Practiced pianists show less brain activity during performance.
There's another post in discussion about how better performers keep "cool."
There's another post in discussion about how better performers keep "cool."
? | 2 years ago
Reply
vast | 2 years ago
Reply
Dude, I'm just a community college student (tho I'm transferring next year).
Took the WAIS when I was 14 and scored 131 so I don't consider myself stupid.
Didn't mean to offend anyone.
Took the WAIS when I was 14 and scored 131 so I don't consider myself stupid.
Didn't mean to offend anyone.
vast | 2 years ago
Reply
Well, I (coincidentally) skimmed over something about the parietal regions today:
http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/parietal-prodigies-superior.html
"the posterior parietal lobe emerges as the most critical factor separating superior from average problem solving and reasoning ability"
I don't believe this is the entire truth, but I guess it is something to keep in mind.
Also, a commenter mentions "linear-static model-analytical reasoning vs. nonlinear -dynamic/uncertainty model-synthetic reasoning" - bs?
http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/parietal-prodigies-superior.html
"the posterior parietal lobe emerges as the most critical factor separating superior from average problem solving and reasoning ability"
I don't believe this is the entire truth, but I guess it is something to keep in mind.
Also, a commenter mentions "linear-static model-analytical reasoning vs. nonlinear -dynamic/uncertainty model-synthetic reasoning" - bs?
cyberiad | 2 years ago
Reply
? | 2 years ago
Reply
vbs then.
Here are some excerpts from the paper (first time I've seen this stuff):
"The general conclusion drawn from extensive psychometric studies was that working memory capacity is significantly associated with g (reasoning) ability (r=0.58 to 0.65) but is not the same construct as reasoning ability. Similar conclusions have been drawn from accumulating neurobiological evidence. For example, Gray et al. (2003) have shown that the dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC) and the PPC regions may mediate the relation between g and behavioral performance. In that study, subjects performed RAPM to assess individual differences in g and were then scanned during a working memory task (n-back). Importantly, significant correlations were observed between individual differences in g and the regional activity across a wide neural network including the lateral prefronal, the parietal, and the temporal cortices during the trials with high interference. These findings are reconcilable with our present results as well as the previous studies that showed a broad fronto-parietal network during performance of reasoning tasks."
"Indeed, our data resulting from a sharp g-contrasting condition demonstrated that ordinary people exhibited more robust and stable activation in the prefrontal regions including the DLPFC than the posterior regions but exceptional people did not."
Here are some excerpts from the paper (first time I've seen this stuff):
"The general conclusion drawn from extensive psychometric studies was that working memory capacity is significantly associated with g (reasoning) ability (r=0.58 to 0.65) but is not the same construct as reasoning ability. Similar conclusions have been drawn from accumulating neurobiological evidence. For example, Gray et al. (2003) have shown that the dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC) and the PPC regions may mediate the relation between g and behavioral performance. In that study, subjects performed RAPM to assess individual differences in g and were then scanned during a working memory task (n-back). Importantly, significant correlations were observed between individual differences in g and the regional activity across a wide neural network including the lateral prefronal, the parietal, and the temporal cortices during the trials with high interference. These findings are reconcilable with our present results as well as the previous studies that showed a broad fronto-parietal network during performance of reasoning tasks."
"Indeed, our data resulting from a sharp g-contrasting condition demonstrated that ordinary people exhibited more robust and stable activation in the prefrontal regions including the DLPFC than the posterior regions but exceptional people did not."
cyberiad | 2 years ago
Reply
cyberiad, from what i know about ppc... that makes sense.
but it is interesting to note that they commented on differences between average and superior performance, specifically.
perhaps the low performers needed to recruit top down (pfc) mechanisms first to get average? then to become exceptional they'd need to refine bottom up mechanisms (somatosensory regions, ppc)?
so the dumbest and the smartest have the least pfc activity.
Superior Parietal Cortex Is Critical for the Manipulation of Information in Working Memory
Michael Koenigs,1 Aron K. Barbey,2,3 Bradley R. Postle,1,4 and Jordan Grafman2
1Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53719, 2Cognitive Neuroscience Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 3Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, and 4Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Correspondence should be addressed to either of the following: Michael Koenigs, Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 6001 Research Park Boulevard, Madison, WI 53719, Email: mrkoenigs@wisc.edu; or Jordan Grafman, Cognitive Neuroscience Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, E-mail: Email: grafmanj@ninds.nih.gov
In recent years, theoretical perspectives on posterior parietal function have evolved beyond the traditional visuospatial processing models to include more diverse cognitive operations, such as long-term and working memory. However, definitive neuropsychological evidence supporting the superior parietal lobule's purported role in working memory has been lacking. Here, we studied human brain lesion patients to determine whether the superior parietal lobule is indeed necessary for working memory. We assessed a wide range of memory functions in three participant groups: superior parietal lesions (n = 19), lesions not involving superior parietal cortex (n = 146), and no brain lesions (n = 55). Superior parietal damage was reliably associated with deficits on tests involving the manipulation and rearrangement of information in working memory, but not on working memory tests requiring only rehearsal and retrieval processes, nor on tests of long-term memory. These results indicate that superior parietal cortex is critically important for the manipulation of information in working memory.
but it is interesting to note that they commented on differences between average and superior performance, specifically.
perhaps the low performers needed to recruit top down (pfc) mechanisms first to get average? then to become exceptional they'd need to refine bottom up mechanisms (somatosensory regions, ppc)?
so the dumbest and the smartest have the least pfc activity.
Superior Parietal Cortex Is Critical for the Manipulation of Information in Working Memory
Michael Koenigs,1 Aron K. Barbey,2,3 Bradley R. Postle,1,4 and Jordan Grafman2
1Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53719, 2Cognitive Neuroscience Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 3Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, and 4Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Correspondence should be addressed to either of the following: Michael Koenigs, Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 6001 Research Park Boulevard, Madison, WI 53719, Email: mrkoenigs@wisc.edu; or Jordan Grafman, Cognitive Neuroscience Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, E-mail: Email: grafmanj@ninds.nih.gov
In recent years, theoretical perspectives on posterior parietal function have evolved beyond the traditional visuospatial processing models to include more diverse cognitive operations, such as long-term and working memory. However, definitive neuropsychological evidence supporting the superior parietal lobule's purported role in working memory has been lacking. Here, we studied human brain lesion patients to determine whether the superior parietal lobule is indeed necessary for working memory. We assessed a wide range of memory functions in three participant groups: superior parietal lesions (n = 19), lesions not involving superior parietal cortex (n = 146), and no brain lesions (n = 55). Superior parietal damage was reliably associated with deficits on tests involving the manipulation and rearrangement of information in working memory, but not on working memory tests requiring only rehearsal and retrieval processes, nor on tests of long-term memory. These results indicate that superior parietal cortex is critically important for the manipulation of information in working memory.
medicalstudent | 2 years ago
Reply
also...
"No monkey advantage over humans is ever found in WMC or short-term memory tasks."
this statement is now spurious and must be reconsidered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khe9bXT-OHE
"No monkey advantage over humans is ever found in WMC or short-term memory tasks."
this statement is now spurious and must be reconsidered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khe9bXT-OHE
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
Did they go any higher than 5 steps on the hidden symbols test? 5 steps is easily doable by us, I would think.
cevapcici | 3 years ago
Reply
cevapcici | 3 years ago
Reply
well you sure don't want to watch any youtube
have you herd of www.fubrain.com/ and www.tetrislive.com/ these are were i am going next.
have you herd of www.fubrain.com/ and www.tetrislive.com/ these are were i am going next.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
? | 3 years ago
Reply
You can see this on the Nintendo DS. Some have posted their videos on YouTube and they go beyond nine items and are equally fast as the chimp.
Don't count humans out yet.
Don't count humans out yet.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
