cognitive fun!

Learn your mind. Play it too.
Dual N back level = what approximate IQ?
milestones | 9 years ago Reply Link me
N1=dual,triple,Quad...
N2 = stage
? | 8 months ago Reply
(N1*2) * (N2-back score)-(N2^2+(N1^2*N2))/(N1*N2) + 100 = My IQ±(15+(A.REM/(10-N1))) [Δ15]
? | 8 months ago Reply
//[if, N1>1 || N2
? | 8 months ago Reply
[if, N1>1 and N2
? | 8 months ago Reply
Sorry, My mistake.
Definition
[if, N1>1 and N2
? | 8 months ago Reply
[if, N1>1 and N2 (2*2) * 2.00 -((2^2)+(2^2*2))/(2*2)) + 100
= 4 * 2 -(12/4) + 100
≒ 105±16 [Δ15]

A.REM = 2*2*2 = 8

triple 5-back 100% clear
-> (3*2) * 5.00 -((5^2)+(3^2*5))/(3*5)) + 100
= 6 * 5 - (70/15) + 100
≒ 123±19 [Δ15]

A.REM = 2*3*5 = 30

dual 10-back 100% clear
-> (2*2) * 10.00 -((10^2)+(2^2*10))/(2*10)) + 100
= 4 * 10 - (140/20) + 100
≒ 133±20 [Δ15]

A.REM = 2*2*10 = 40

triple 8-back 100% clear
-> (3*2) * 8.00 - ((8^2)+(3^2*8))/(3*8)) + 100
= 6 * 8 - (136/24) + 100
≒ 142±24 [Δ15]

A.REM = 2*3*8 = 48

quad 10-back 100% clear
-> (4*2) * 10.00 - ((10^2)+(4^2*10))/(4*10)) + 100
= 8 * 10 - (260/40) + 100
≒ 173±28 [Δ15]

A.REM = 2*4*10 = 80

(about my presumption)
(ver 0.0.1)
? | 8 months ago Reply
how did you arrive at this?
what is a.rem?
? | 8 months ago Reply
This is the worst game ever!!!! I tried so hard I mean so hard but this game is not working. If you want high stress I would suggest this because my stress has gotten worse. I can go on.i read the stupid instructions but it still doesn't help. I try not to stress but when your parents get involved its not pretty. Run me over please
? | 3 years ago Reply
N-Back 2 IQ 138 http://www.free-iqtest.net (approx 2 weeks ago)

I'd like to state the standard deviation but the site doesn't state it and I really don't understand how one works that out....which was the first sign that made me think the site had overscored me by 1 maybe 2 or 38 points. The second sign is that I struggle with even N-Back 2. I just, after weeks of training, reached N-Back 3 and it is a God damn blur of squares and sounds to me. The third sign was that I keep changing what my tense is.
L8ton | 4 years ago Reply
Dude I started dual n back a few days ago and i had the same question. I had done by iq and it turns out to be 146!!.
IQ Test
So this was my approach ..
relax and forget about how did you progress, just go with the flow and try to figure out the answer and dont stress out!!.
The thing is if you remain on one level for a long time then your brain starts making connections and figure out patterns to excel on that level so you perform better.So for better outcome of this exercise you should oscillate between levels.
? | 2 years ago Reply
wow, how the ;;; did you do it?

Maxing out the WAIS, including all the subtests such as vocabulary??????( they would be extremely unpredictable if you really were first to take it)

I am assuming that you have WAIS kit fourth edition at home to practice with to score better on the actual supervised WAIS by a psychologist. They sure don't know you have the WAIS at home.
It can be purchased just about by anyone for 1100 dollars..
mensancandidate | 4 years ago Reply
There is no correlation, I maxed out the WAIS 4 and got 160 and cant even reach 3 after 2 sessions...

I am taking an extended test soon as I have reached the maximum score and am hoping to reach 180 that's why I am training "just in case" :p
? | 4 years ago Reply
You have to say in touch with me, I am also trying to beat up both the WAIS and supervising psychologist. By practicing the actual test.
mensancandidate | 4 years ago Reply
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!
? | 6 years 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
? | 8 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!
? | 7 years ago Reply
for 2 tries N level 2.6 and i'm Mensa (pl) member (scored 156 on Raven's matrix test in Cattell's scale) so not sure if corelation very positive.
? | 5 years ago Reply
744
? | 3 years ago Reply
I was got the score of 160 on Raven's advance mensa test after "n back training"
? | 5 years ago Reply
No, it isn't. I've seen a chap with 135 IQ work at n=
? | 7 years 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.
? | 7 years ago Reply
Idk how, but I am a 135 IQ and I have reached N=7. It's probably training time, although I don't use it too much.

I'm running a blog detailing my project of getting a higher IQ. If you want to follow or look at it, here is the link:
Shivamjgandhi.wordpress.com

If you have any feedback, I'd love to hear it
? | 3 years 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.
? | 6 years ago Reply
where did he find an implementation of the game that went all the way to D10B?
? | 7 years ago Reply
Here.
? | 7 years ago Reply
No, elsewhere...
? | 7 years 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).
milestones | 9 years ago Reply
No way this is true.I reached n=7 in 14 days.I am no way near 150..Never done an iq test but I am sure it's not going to be more than 120.
? | 2 months ago Reply
I am going to guess there is no correlation between IQ score and N-Back, because IQ tests are tests of knowledge and experience. Take a look at the IQ scores of Nobel prize winners, nothing special. I would go as far to say that the IQ test itself is faulty.
? | 4 years ago Reply
IQ is defined in many ways, and if we'd consider only abstract reasoning IQ, then I'd probably agree with this rough correlation, though we could agree that it needs some adjustment. A distribution analysis over a population large enough to generate a distribution curve similar to that of the IQ bell curve should give us clues to the n-IQ correlation.

By the way, I initially plateaued at N= 8 & 9, and my abstract reasoning quotient is around 160 ~ 170.

After discovering that I am a synesthete, I applied synesthesia with n-back, and my n is now at 12. Now I'd be too optimistic to believe that my abstract reasoning quotient is around 200.

There has to be a correlation, but we need more statistics.
? | 5 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
GHzXx | 6 years 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 | 6 years 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
? | 6 years 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.
1A2B3C | 6 years ago Reply
If your IQ ever increase dramatically, you will feel it very deep inside you because your long term memory will boost and self monitoring capabilities will boost. And you will be able to compare how you felt n years ago to now. Even specific moments. You will automatically remember things, figure out patterns. You will give quick answers to the most of the questions. Thats IQ. You will make jokes a lot when you are happy. Because youll do them incredibly well crafted.
? | 4 years ago Reply
Got 137 on this one http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/tests/jcti/209-2/



spent 2plus hours approx(test is untimed).

So at least one of the tests suck (and a great deal: 137-104=33 points difference!)

Still I feel the iqout.com is more accurate.



I have reached dual 8-9 back now(though not consistently there).
1A2B3C | 5 years ago Reply
As much as you don't believe it, the JCTI would be a better assessment of your ability. And just because your results vary should not lead you to believe that either of the tests "suck". The could be highly correlated, even if the results aren't the "same"; and no matter how they're correlated, you can still get different results.
? | 5 years ago Reply
Congratulations! That's an immense improvement! Cheers!!
? | 5 years ago Reply
There is no improvement. One test is timed and the other is untimed. Speed has little correlation with g, so it is unsurprising that he would fair differently on a timed (IQOUT) test than an untimed (JCTI) test.
? | 5 years ago Reply
Also i should point out that your "improvement" is probably a re-test effect. Ergo, your failure to recognize this is a symptom of confirmation bias and lack of necessary logical ability. 137 is still pretty low by my standards, nothing notable.
? | 5 years ago Reply
?: It looks (obviously, like duh) as though 1A2B3C took 2 different tests. I agree with your first point (in principle only) concerning speed as a correlate but the retest and confirmation bias comment siphon validity from the rest of your critique.

We know nothing of the SD for each test and nothing of either their individual validity or their correlation. If you're going to be nasty and degrading, you might want to consider hiring a someone a wee bit smarter than you to bounce the ideas off. Someone with an IQ north of 137 on a WAIS of SB (as in a *real* test) would never have made such a silly and avoidable error.

Your need to be a butthole exposed your own confirmation bias, and your lack of g; you react quickly but without depth, much in the way of someone who would fair well on a test of speed. You prove the rule! Congrats!! :*
? | 5 years ago Reply
yea hes a real pompous guy, call people moron and get some supporters and excuses ho hum
? | 5 years ago Reply
My IQ score is measured at 88 it took me 1 week and get to 6-back
? | 7 years ago Reply
hie, u mean ure iq is 88 after d game or b4 :) sorry to ask
? | 6 years 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 | 6 years ago Reply
If you're still here to respond, may I ask if you have a progress report to show this? That improvement is a lot faster than any I've seen before.
? | 7 years ago Reply
Sorry, I made the above post.
Subrosian | 7 years 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.
? | 7 years 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.
? | 8 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?
? | 9 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.
? | 9 years ago Reply
IQ probably has an equal hand in both effectiveness of first performances and the ceiling of potential improvement (after practice).
cevapcici | 9 years ago Reply
IQ values in right column assuming a standard deviation of 15.
milestones | 9 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.
medicalstudent | 9 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...
milestones | 9 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
medicalstudent | 9 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.
milestones | 9 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 | 9 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"
medicalstudent | 9 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 | 9 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.
argumzio | 9 years ago Reply
Get the IQ equivalent by using the z-scores for dual n-back in your profile, I guess.
cevapcici | 9 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
? | 9 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
milestones | 9 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.
medicalstudent | 9 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.
? | 7 years 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?
medicalstudent | 8 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?
? | 8 years ago Reply
It's a measure of neural efficiency, not distribution.
? | 8 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?
? | 8 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.
? | 8 years ago Reply
There was less activity in some PFC regions and less causal interaction with other brain regions.
? | 8 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.
? | 8 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
? | 8 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.
? | 8 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.
? | 8 years ago Reply
"Dude, spare us the bipolar divel."
cyberiad | 7 years ago Reply
No malicious intent.
cyberiad | 7 years 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)
cyberiad | 7 years ago Reply
*subhumans (seriously)
cyberiad | 7 years ago Reply
Keep talking shit. My IQ is through the roof.

Slow-witted Philistines...
cyberiad | 7 years ago Reply
hah forgot about my act score
cyberiad | 7 years ago Reply
On second thought, slaving away at analogies in order to get into prometheus would be a massive waste of my time.
cyberiad | 7 years 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 | 7 years ago Reply
Practiced pianists show less brain activity during performance.
There's another post in discussion about how better performers keep "cool."
? | 8 years ago Reply
sorry, a bit drunk, misread something...
vast | 8 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.
vast | 8 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?
cyberiad | 8 years ago Reply
Yep, BS and a half.
? | 8 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."
cyberiad | 8 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.
medicalstudent | 8 years ago Reply
woot

once the crab-back is set in BW, we'll be able to fire up our superior parietal cortices...

you all will eat my dust :P
? | 8 years ago Reply
riiight.... you-wish, newb
vast | 8 years ago Reply
hi
BrainMaster2 | 8 years ago Reply
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|____________| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
vast | 8 years ago Reply
:)
? | 8 years ago Reply
^oops, that was me. *facepalm*
vast | 8 years ago Reply
YOU ALL SUCK
vast | 8 years ago Reply
i iz not a "newb", douche

i am an innovator, inventor, genius

genuflect and i may let you live your insignificant life
? | 8 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
medicalstudent | 9 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 | 9 years ago Reply
Ah okay, so they did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAH4ZJBiN8&NR=1

Chimps 1-0 Humans
cevapcici | 9 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.
? | 9 years ago Reply
What about the snezing panda that is anamuse
? | 9 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.
? | 9 years ago Reply
:-)
cevapcici | 9 years ago Reply
I've got the very game that you mention.

Interestingly enough, the guy who claims the world record ( = 14 steps) has a vid of himself playing n-back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeTZLRYsV3c
cevapcici | 9 years ago Reply
Wait wait...is this the world record for monkey ladder? I'm at 12 at the moment...There are people on Cambridge Brain Sciences who have supposedly reached 15 (could've been cheating so who knows). But I mean...either I'm a hell of a lot smarter than I think I am, or 14 is too low for a world record.
? | 6 years ago Reply
That's the one. ;-)
? | 9 years ago Reply
The Corsi blocks test is the closest thing this site has to it, I guess. (My best is 12 on the blocks - not quite there yet).
cevapcici | 9 years ago Reply
Post got mangled for some reason here are the links:
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.074
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.038
milestones | 9 years ago Reply
lol losers
? | 7 years ago Reply
how much is for mensa?
? | 6 years ago Reply
IQ 150? that's way too high, more like IQ 132 for mensa - 98th percentile. People who score 150 are around the 99.9 percentile. those 18 points are a gulf.
? | 6 years ago Reply
150 if the standard deviation is set to 24...

Why don't people realize that the standard deviation always has to be stated when talking about IQ? It's like saying it's 25 degrees outside, but without specifying whether it's degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit.
? | 6 years ago Reply
You're absolutely right about the need to talk about SD when mentioning the raw score.

Without it, there's really no context for a discussion about the meaning of the number.
? | 6 years ago Reply
In other words, IQ is the normalized score of the raw score...
? | 6 years ago Reply
Well, if you're stating the raw score, then you also have to include the mean raw score. IQ tends to have 100 as the mean, anyway, so it doesn't usually need stating.
? | 6 years ago Reply
150
? | 6 years ago Reply
but it depends on which country you belong to
? | 6 years ago Reply
I am new to N-back training and just discovered the game at soakyourhead.com. So I have tested fairly high on IQ tests (130+), but I am struggling with 3-back (only one 20/20 so far), and 4-back seems very difficult. I only started yesterday and have trained about 3-4 times.

I see people here with N-back numbers that seem incredibly high. I am just wondering if it took a long time to work your way up to this level.

What kind of N-back number is reasonable in the first few days of training? Is the improvement curve steep in the beginning as you get comfortable with the mechanics of the game?

Thanks for any info,

TJ.
? | 6 years ago Reply
I don't know what my IQ is but I've been playing only for about 10 to 12 days and I'm on level 7. I've tried level 8 once (on manual mode) but can only get 50%. I'm aiming for 10-back. :D
? | 6 years ago Reply
A normal person can only remeber 7 digits. how it could be dual 8 back or onward.. huh .. THERE ARE TOO MANY LIERS... and dual 7 back means 14 :P .. DUAL 6 IS TOO HIGH TO BE BELEIVED.. dont give the fuck
jackoria | 5 years ago Reply
Practice makes perfect...
? | 3 years ago Reply
Think again. Do you mean that a normal cannot remember a mobile phone number which is more than 7 digits long?
sunkith | 5 years ago Reply
You're an idiot.
? | 5 years ago Reply
Well, I wouldn't put it that way - but the idea of a normal person only holding up up to 7 items in their memory is a pop psych myth, indeed.

Pop psychology gives nice "all sizes fit" answers and it makes things easier for us to understand, but it fails the test of reality; in reality people have indeed different cognitive capabilities - even the "normal people" do - some, like me have a strong working memory, and others - unlike me - have a strong facial recognition capability.

It's funny, yet sad, really, how I can perform tasks that require excellent working memory quuie well, yet the other day I once again mistook a stranger for a friend and went up to her to greet her and talk to her. Boy did I feel dumb afterwards; but luckily that gal was indeed much more 'socially intelligent' person than me and made me realize that there is nothing to be ashamed of for talking to strangers, at least for a little while.

So you see, there are "normal people" who indeed can "remember more than 7 digits"... And I'm constantly awed and amazed that there are people who can perform well under 250ms regularly in the Visual Reaction Time test. I just can't seem to even get down to that speed, let alone below it. Yet I seem to be able to hold almost the same reaction speed in the Go/No-go -test that I do in the Visual Reaction Time -test, which feels pretty nice :)
Zephyrus | 5 years ago Reply
Well I was diagnosed with MR (Mental Retardation) as a kid. I haven't taken an IQ test as an adult. So I took one online and scored 41. That's pretty low. Then when I did Dual N Back for a couple of weeks, I took the IQ test online again and it came up to 63. I haven't taken an official IQ test after I did Dual N Back, neither did I take one ever since I was diagnosed wit MR.
? | 5 years ago Reply
Your MR is as valid as my claim to be an alien... Whatever...
? | 5 years ago Reply

Login to save scores

© 2008-2012 cognitivefun.net | about | widgets | blog | cognitive neuroscience for everyone