which are your scores?
? | 10 months ago
Reply
which are your scores?
my scores are 135 perceptual 139 itemspan, 118working memory , 131 attentional , 123 executive
zaredestanov | 11 months ago
Reply
1A2B3C | 10 months ago
Reply
Interesting. Your I-Score is more than four times greater than mine, and yet our profiles are somewhat comparable.
argumzio | 10 months ago
Reply
((261.62 + 227.04 + 353.56 + 160 + 341.78) - 5*BASELINE)/5 = 168.8
If we take the gain per number of I-Score points (to get the diachronic improvement), we get (W):
3577*1.688= 5966.36
Your overall score, therefore, is
16271*1.72244 = 28025.82
But if we consider the gains w.r.t. the time invested (X)
(168.8/3577)*100 = 4.719
and
(172.244/16271)*100 = 1.059
which indeed indicates rapid gains (on my part), despite limited experience (Y):
Y=W*X
5966.36*4.719 = 28155
Which is indeed comparable to yours at 29679.
I just wonder what the observed maximum for Y is. Goodness knows it can't stay high for very long, for minimal gains versus experience will drag it down (as is shown by 1A2B3C's stat's compared to my own).
If we take the gain per number of I-Score points (to get the diachronic improvement), we get (W):
3577*1.688= 5966.36
Your overall score, therefore, is
16271*1.72244 = 28025.82
But if we consider the gains w.r.t. the time invested (X)
(168.8/3577)*100 = 4.719
and
(172.244/16271)*100 = 1.059
which indeed indicates rapid gains (on my part), despite limited experience (Y):
Y=W*X
5966.36*4.719 = 28155
Which is indeed comparable to yours at 29679.
I just wonder what the observed maximum for Y is. Goodness knows it can't stay high for very long, for minimal gains versus experience will drag it down (as is shown by 1A2B3C's stat's compared to my own).
argumzio | 10 months ago
Reply
Interpretively, I would consider Y to be the "effective gain" observed from training, and differences would probably be perceptible logarithmically, so:
EY = LOG(Y)
So every integer increase in EY will consist in a noticeable difference in performance.
But I'm sure others could analyze this a little differently.... :)
EY = LOG(Y)
So every integer increase in EY will consist in a noticeable difference in performance.
But I'm sure others could analyze this a little differently.... :)
argumzio | 10 months ago
Reply
An excel file has sped up the analysis somewhat. I'd consider multiplying X by EY (call it Z) to get a clearer sense of the "striking" or compound effect the gains would have compared to baseline. This is because a change in the I-Score had no effect on LOG(Y), which makes sense, instead affected mainly by the average gain.
The only problem I can see now is that we must know what the initial I-Score is once the baselines have all been taken into account, so that they can be subtracted from the calculation. A reasonable estimate would probably be 100 I-Score points, which has a negligible (positive) effect on the X*EY calculation. However, if I-Scores aren't given prior to the all of the baselines being taken, then this isn't a problem.
Z will fall or rise as the I-Score increases or decreases, respectively, but rise or fall as X increases or decreases, respectively. If we regard Z as a kind of *hypothetical rarity*, then we can convert it into a percentile ranking by computing SCORE as
1/(1-Z)
And the rest can be computed as hypothetical z-scores (from the normal distribution).
My hypothetical z-score is 1.68 (merely a coincidental value). 1A2B3C's is 0.806. I would consider a hyp z-score of 1 or greater a strong indicator of continued gains despite prolonged training. A score of 2 or more would be remarkable.
The funny thing is, though, cognitivefun could have provided this sort of information to us actually based on the raw empirical data. Too bad that isn't the case, and all I have to go on are these very sketchy numbers and rather unreliable numerical manipulations.
The only problem I can see now is that we must know what the initial I-Score is once the baselines have all been taken into account, so that they can be subtracted from the calculation. A reasonable estimate would probably be 100 I-Score points, which has a negligible (positive) effect on the X*EY calculation. However, if I-Scores aren't given prior to the all of the baselines being taken, then this isn't a problem.
Z will fall or rise as the I-Score increases or decreases, respectively, but rise or fall as X increases or decreases, respectively. If we regard Z as a kind of *hypothetical rarity*, then we can convert it into a percentile ranking by computing SCORE as
1/(1-Z)
And the rest can be computed as hypothetical z-scores (from the normal distribution).
My hypothetical z-score is 1.68 (merely a coincidental value). 1A2B3C's is 0.806. I would consider a hyp z-score of 1 or greater a strong indicator of continued gains despite prolonged training. A score of 2 or more would be remarkable.
The funny thing is, though, cognitivefun could have provided this sort of information to us actually based on the raw empirical data. Too bad that isn't the case, and all I have to go on are these very sketchy numbers and rather unreliable numerical manipulations.
? | 10 months ago
Reply
Some example cases that seem to point to the rough reliability of this calculation:
Given
I-Score......AvgGain.....HypZscore
3500.........150.........1.61
1850.........180.........1.999
Given
I-Score......AvgGain.....HypZscore
3500.........150.........1.61
1850.........180.........1.999
? | 10 months ago
Reply
argumzio | 10 months ago
Reply
Attentional: 261.62
Executive: 227.04
Item Span: 353.56
Perceptual: 160
Working Memory: 341.78
I haven't been playing as much lately, so these might go down. I'm sure I have more room for improvement, but I see little point in doing that as much as others have: my I-Score is only 3577.
Executive: 227.04
Item Span: 353.56
Perceptual: 160
Working Memory: 341.78
I haven't been playing as much lately, so these might go down. I'm sure I have more room for improvement, but I see little point in doing that as much as others have: my I-Score is only 3577.
argumzio | 10 months ago
Reply
100 perceptual
125 attentional
72 executive
114 working memory
209 item span
not to be an idiot but could somebady clarify what the above means, i know what working memory is and if executive is what i think it is it means i'm a slow thinker or i process things slowly.
125 attentional
72 executive
114 working memory
209 item span
not to be an idiot but could somebady clarify what the above means, i know what working memory is and if executive is what i think it is it means i'm a slow thinker or i process things slowly.
draft9chem | 10 months ago
Reply
Those percentages denote your relative improvement from your initial baseline scores. Your executive has dropped, which is odd. Try improving that for a while.
? | 10 months ago
Reply
so be blunt simply attempt to complete the challenge as quickly as possible, is that what you are saying?
draft9chem | 10 months ago
Reply
just to add an additional side note i was diagnosed with ADHD as a child and continue to suffer from it as an adult at the age of 23
draft9chem | 10 months ago
Reply
Very interesting. So the executive tasks *really do* have something to do with executive functioning.
Clearly, that should be your main area of focus.
Clearly, that should be your main area of focus.
? | 10 months ago
Reply
just finished my drills today, executive functions have improved incrimentally from73.5 to 76.3, i'll check in with you guys at the end of august and let you know my progress.
draft9chem | 10 months ago
Reply
However... it is doubtful that they'll actually help you with your problem. Trying for a while can't hurt.
? | 10 months ago
Reply
I agree that they represent personal improvement from baseline but I believe that, problematically albeit perhaps necessarily, the initial baseline scores are derived from a small number of one's first few attempts and that these are not fully representative of one's baseline capacities, it being impossible to explore one's limits when temporarily restricted to many tasks' lower levels.
My improvement scores include WM 316 and IS 372, which are just ridiculous if taken to be indicative of amelioration of a fundamental capacity - I may have achieved performances on certain tasks that are three or four times better than on my first few attempts but my memory itself has not improved by that much, if at all.
My improvement scores include WM 316 and IS 372, which are just ridiculous if taken to be indicative of amelioration of a fundamental capacity - I may have achieved performances on certain tasks that are three or four times better than on my first few attempts but my memory itself has not improved by that much, if at all.
? | 10 months ago
Reply
working memory is different from information consolidation from short term to long term. it simply allows one to retain x amount of data while manipulating it or calculating it.
draft9chem | 10 months ago
Reply
