training time
training time
there may be a differential time course for cognitive enhancement in high and low proficiency individuals.
initial wm capacity may interact with both how much you train AND how long you wait after commencing training to see results. this paper suggests smarter people had INCREASING enhancement during certain later time intervals after training (an inflationary model, the opposite of what i expected). interestingly, this was the latest time interval they measured... what if they kept going? would it inflate more?!
what if smart really does beget smarter?
am i interpreting this correctly? is this really an inverse ceiling effect?
i want to see this repeated.
"Conversely, the regular readers gained the most in various working memory skills at the long post-training time (T3, after six months). It can be hypothesized that the changes in brain activity among regular readers immediately following training are initially at the level of the stimulus perception, as their performance is basically automatic (see the amplitudes of the CRN component) and there is almost no need for them to activate the error detection monitoring system (as there is a low amount of errors). However, because their current system resources are sufficient for adequate functioning, they need longer to consolidate the skill in which they were trained [33], [39], [42]. Further studies are required to examine this concept in depth."
PLoS One. 2009 Sep 25;4(9):e7141.
Can the error detection mechanism benefit from training the working memory? A comparison between dyslexics and controls--an ERP study.
initial wm capacity may interact with both how much you train AND how long you wait after commencing training to see results. this paper suggests smarter people had INCREASING enhancement during certain later time intervals after training (an inflationary model, the opposite of what i expected). interestingly, this was the latest time interval they measured... what if they kept going? would it inflate more?!
what if smart really does beget smarter?
am i interpreting this correctly? is this really an inverse ceiling effect?
i want to see this repeated.
"Conversely, the regular readers gained the most in various working memory skills at the long post-training time (T3, after six months). It can be hypothesized that the changes in brain activity among regular readers immediately following training are initially at the level of the stimulus perception, as their performance is basically automatic (see the amplitudes of the CRN component) and there is almost no need for them to activate the error detection monitoring system (as there is a low amount of errors). However, because their current system resources are sufficient for adequate functioning, they need longer to consolidate the skill in which they were trained [33], [39], [42]. Further studies are required to examine this concept in depth."
PLoS One. 2009 Sep 25;4(9):e7141.
Can the error detection mechanism benefit from training the working memory? A comparison between dyslexics and controls--an ERP study.
medicalstudent | 2 years ago
Reply
pull up the full text and look at the nominal gains in table 3
somebody tell me i am making this up; if this interpretation is correct...
...this information is paradigm shifting.
somebody tell me i am making this up; if this interpretation is correct...
...this information is paradigm shifting.
medicalstudent | 2 years ago
Reply
cevapcici | 2 years ago
Reply
medicalstudent | 2 years ago
Reply
C'mon, man, this is a basic research skill. And PLoS ONE is always FREE!!!
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007141
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007141
? | 2 years ago
Reply
C'mon, man, posting the link saves everyone from having to waste time and energy working their google finger and gives you a chance to show off your mad research skillz.
Cheers, guys.
Cheers, guys.
cevapcici | 2 years ago
Reply
