Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance(arstechnica.co.uk)
arstechnica.co.uk
Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance
https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2017/07/lumosity-doesnt-improve-brain-function/
78 comments
Interestingly, one of my old colleagues has research that examines exercise / sport practice in humans as an alternative to the WM training approach. (You two might get along :).
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_0GhDagAAAAJ
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_0GhDagAAAAJ
Can you share some more recommendations or advice on how one can increase neuroplasticity/neurogenesis?
Aside from the diet/exercise/socialization/meditation, what should people be aware of?
Are there some effective supplements/nootropics, or some promising research to look into?
Aside from the diet/exercise/socialization/meditation, what should people be aware of?
Are there some effective supplements/nootropics, or some promising research to look into?
I left academia about five years ago, and don't want to create the impression that I'm some brilliant academic researcher (I spent three years doing rat/staining/counting work in a lab and wrote an honors thesis on the topic). I try to keep up on current research when I can though, the work pretty much consumed my life and I kind of miss it sometimes.
Regular aerobic exercise (stuff that elevates your heart rate) is still the best thing we know of. It's good for upregulation of neurogenesis and BDNF.
There are dozens of papers out there showing that a certain treatment/activity/drug increases neurogenesis. It's funny, I was talking about neuroscience to a lyft driver a way back who was curious about neurogenesis/neuroplasticity, and I told him that exercise is your best bet, but we also had some good results treating our brain-damaged rats with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. He shrugged off the exercise bit but of course asked me to spell out ACh inhibitor for him (which I really wouldn't recommend any random person off the street taking).
I experimented for a bit with nootropics after I graduated. Gwern's posts are really interesting if you haven't read him (https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics). A number of people have found success with a basic choline and -racetam stack. As much as tech blogs love blogging about how we're all hooked on nootropics in the valley, it's unlikely that taking some pills in the morning is going to dramatically change your life (though it might nudge it in the right direction). As one of the other replies said, lifestyle changes are still the most effective approach.
Regular aerobic exercise (stuff that elevates your heart rate) is still the best thing we know of. It's good for upregulation of neurogenesis and BDNF.
There are dozens of papers out there showing that a certain treatment/activity/drug increases neurogenesis. It's funny, I was talking about neuroscience to a lyft driver a way back who was curious about neurogenesis/neuroplasticity, and I told him that exercise is your best bet, but we also had some good results treating our brain-damaged rats with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. He shrugged off the exercise bit but of course asked me to spell out ACh inhibitor for him (which I really wouldn't recommend any random person off the street taking).
I experimented for a bit with nootropics after I graduated. Gwern's posts are really interesting if you haven't read him (https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics). A number of people have found success with a basic choline and -racetam stack. As much as tech blogs love blogging about how we're all hooked on nootropics in the valley, it's unlikely that taking some pills in the morning is going to dramatically change your life (though it might nudge it in the right direction). As one of the other replies said, lifestyle changes are still the most effective approach.
Cognitive improvement won't be found in drugs or supplements. The answer is in lifestyle change and recognizing the body and mind as one system.
As far as your question about taking drugs/supplements to increase cognitive function, I can say with certainty any positive effect in the short term will eventually fall to long term dependencies and addictions which will, in turn actually decrease your resting cognitive function.
Slightly off-topic, but the pushback against brain training owes a huge debt of thanks to Randy Engle (and others), for loudly questioning the methods and rational of the early "become smarter by the magic of dual n-back" research.
Here's an article where he compares it to cold fusion: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/can-you-make-your...
Here's an article where he compares it to cold fusion: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/can-you-make-your...
Was the claim not "doing n-back helps working memory"? Hardly "become smarter". Whether or not it works is worthy of discussion, but straw-man-ing a hyperbolic claim that wasn't made doesn't add to the discussion.
That was half the claim. The full claim was that it improves fluid intelligence by improving working memory. The title of Jaeggi 2008 is "Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory".
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.abstract
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.abstract
My wife is a PhD in applied cognition (field of psychology), wrote her thesis on improvements in working memory and attention, and is working on an early-stage business around better brain coaching[1]. (More of a 1:1 model than a tech stack.)
She has long stated that Lumosity is crap. For two three main reasons:
1. The "improvement" you see in playing Lumosity games is due to getting good at the game, not actually underlying improvements.
2. The games you do want to pursue need to to be strategic and challenge the mind. They need to be different, and involve complex scenarios. She likes Rise of Nations, by way of example. Flash minigames don't cut it (and neither do crosswords).
3. Brain games are 20% of a total set of activities that have an impact on brain health, the other 80% including physical exercise, diet, socialization, and lack of stress (mindfulness training helps here).
Anyway, fascinating stuff, and glad Lumosity's "bad science" and false claims are coming to the fore.
[1] http://brainevolved.com
She has long stated that Lumosity is crap. For two three main reasons:
1. The "improvement" you see in playing Lumosity games is due to getting good at the game, not actually underlying improvements.
2. The games you do want to pursue need to to be strategic and challenge the mind. They need to be different, and involve complex scenarios. She likes Rise of Nations, by way of example. Flash minigames don't cut it (and neither do crosswords).
3. Brain games are 20% of a total set of activities that have an impact on brain health, the other 80% including physical exercise, diet, socialization, and lack of stress (mindfulness training helps here).
Anyway, fascinating stuff, and glad Lumosity's "bad science" and false claims are coming to the fore.
[1] http://brainevolved.com
On the other hand, things like exercise and learning a new language have pretty conclusively shown benefits when it comes to reducing symptoms of dementia and brain function loss. [0] [1]
If you'd like to improve your memory I suspect you'd be far better off studying the masters from Aristotle to Dominic O'Brien whose memory palace techniques seem incontrovertibly proven if you consider the techniques of the winners of the world memory championships. [2] [3]
Finally, meditation is not causally linked to higher levels of grey matter but the research seems promising [4]
(I tried to find decent links but being at work can't spend a significant portion of time on the post, these should be good starting points for anyone interested).
[0] - http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/regular-exercise-changes-... [1] - https://www.livescience.com/46048-learning-new-language-brai... (sorry for the ads, and I think it autoplays a video :( ) [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_memory [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_O%27Brien [4] - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150205142951.h...
If you'd like to improve your memory I suspect you'd be far better off studying the masters from Aristotle to Dominic O'Brien whose memory palace techniques seem incontrovertibly proven if you consider the techniques of the winners of the world memory championships. [2] [3]
Finally, meditation is not causally linked to higher levels of grey matter but the research seems promising [4]
(I tried to find decent links but being at work can't spend a significant portion of time on the post, these should be good starting points for anyone interested).
[0] - http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/regular-exercise-changes-... [1] - https://www.livescience.com/46048-learning-new-language-brai... (sorry for the ads, and I think it autoplays a video :( ) [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_memory [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_O%27Brien [4] - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150205142951.h...
Title should include "for healthy young adults" as in the study:
"The researchers note limitations in the study, most importantly that they only looked at young, healthy people. Brain-training games may still prove useful for aging adults or people suffering from addiction or unhealthy behaviors, the researchers caution."
"The researchers note limitations in the study, most importantly that they only looked at young, healthy people. Brain-training games may still prove useful for aging adults or people suffering from addiction or unhealthy behaviors, the researchers caution."
So, kinda like: "Adding a two mile walk every morning was found to have no health benefits[1]
[1] we only studied marathon runners"
[1] we only studied marathon runners"
Except - Luminosity has consistently implied and claimed they can boost performance in young, healthy people.
That study of two mile walks for marathoners would suddenly be worthwhile if a popular, well-funded program claimed they could improve your marathon time with a two mile walk.
That study of two mile walks for marathoners would suddenly be worthwhile if a popular, well-funded program claimed they could improve your marathon time with a two mile walk.
That is an incorrect analogy, because that claim would be about enhancing performance for peak performers.
This study shows that there is no basis for the claim that you can enhance performance of normal/healthy performers.
The researchers state the have insufficient evidence to determine the effect on low/unhealthy performers.
This study shows that there is no basis for the claim that you can enhance performance of normal/healthy performers.
The researchers state the have insufficient evidence to determine the effect on low/unhealthy performers.
It’s actually not a bad analogy - healthy young adults tend to be at their mental peak, certainly compared to when they are another 40-50 years down the road...
It is a bad analogy, because the problem with studying marathon runners is that they've already used the fitness technique you want to study. They're runners because they walk and run a a lot. (And not necessarily because they're young! People run marathons in their 80s.)
This study is about people who've never used Luminosity's techniques, but are in unrelated good (brain) health. There are a lot of known ways to mitigate or undo damage to the brain. Luminosity made a much bolder claim, that they could raise IQ in healthy, high-functioning adult brains. That's the Holy Grail of intelligence research, because no one has ever found a way to do it.
It's like claiming a two mile walk each day will make literally anyone a much better runner. If you claim that, it's relevant that your offering is no good to marathoners.
This study is about people who've never used Luminosity's techniques, but are in unrelated good (brain) health. There are a lot of known ways to mitigate or undo damage to the brain. Luminosity made a much bolder claim, that they could raise IQ in healthy, high-functioning adult brains. That's the Holy Grail of intelligence research, because no one has ever found a way to do it.
It's like claiming a two mile walk each day will make literally anyone a much better runner. If you claim that, it's relevant that your offering is no good to marathoners.
That's a stretch. There's no evidence to suggest that it will be beneficial for anyone. No matter how many studies you run you can always find a group that isn't covered by the study and say "Well it STILL might be helpful for Red haired, left handed people between 5'2 and 5'3 with 2 siblings of the same gender."
"Brain-training games may still prove useful for aging adults or people suffering from addiction or unhealthy behaviors, the researchers caution.
Given the context of the article, this is an unscientific and immoral statement.
It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it.
If the researchers have a positive reason to believe brain-training games are a form of medical treatment for aging or addicted populations, they should state that. None of this "may" nonsense.
Given the context of the article, this is an unscientific and immoral statement.
It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it.
If the researchers have a positive reason to believe brain-training games are a form of medical treatment for aging or addicted populations, they should state that. None of this "may" nonsense.
> It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it.
This is actually two statements.
> It is irrational to believe something is true unless you have evidence for it.
Sure, I'd agree with that.
> It is irrational to believe something is possible unless you have evidence for it.
Whoa, there. This seems like it goes...way beyond rationality. I would argue that you would need strong evidence if you were going to claim something was impossible.
This is actually two statements.
> It is irrational to believe something is true unless you have evidence for it.
Sure, I'd agree with that.
> It is irrational to believe something is possible unless you have evidence for it.
Whoa, there. This seems like it goes...way beyond rationality. I would argue that you would need strong evidence if you were going to claim something was impossible.
A claim of possibility or impossibility are both claims about the nature of the universe and both require evidence.
If you have no evidence for a claim, then any statement made regarding that claim, either in support of or opposed to, is arbitrary and lacks any intellectual value.
For example, any claim about the (non)existence of god is arbitrary and not worth even a moment of consideration, because there is no evidence whatever in support of the claim either way.
If you have no evidence for a claim, then any statement made regarding that claim, either in support of or opposed to, is arbitrary and lacks any intellectual value.
For example, any claim about the (non)existence of god is arbitrary and not worth even a moment of consideration, because there is no evidence whatever in support of the claim either way.
I suppose there are two different claims of possibility that are getting confused.
There is a hard claim of possibility, that is a claim of the state of nature (e.g. it is possible for a photon to travel at 0.5c). This hard claim is one where we definitively say that it is _certain_ that it's a physical possibility.
Then there is a soft claim of possibility, that is a claim of our state of knowledge. (e.g. It's possible that Rob went to the store, but I'm not sure).
These are two different claims. One is a hard claim that should only be made with evidence. The other is a statement of our uncertainty and an open mind; that doesn't need any evidence to make.
It's a shame that these two different meanings of these words exist, but such is the English language. They are saying that their research does not close the door on that eventuality, and that their state of knowledge on that topic is uncertain.
There is a hard claim of possibility, that is a claim of the state of nature (e.g. it is possible for a photon to travel at 0.5c). This hard claim is one where we definitively say that it is _certain_ that it's a physical possibility.
Then there is a soft claim of possibility, that is a claim of our state of knowledge. (e.g. It's possible that Rob went to the store, but I'm not sure).
These are two different claims. One is a hard claim that should only be made with evidence. The other is a statement of our uncertainty and an open mind; that doesn't need any evidence to make.
It's a shame that these two different meanings of these words exist, but such is the English language. They are saying that their research does not close the door on that eventuality, and that their state of knowledge on that topic is uncertain.
If I ask you, "Where did Rob go?" and you, having never even heard of Rob, respond "he might be out cheating on his wife," it would be an arbitrary statement bordering on malice. Qualifying the statement with "but I'm not sure," doesn't help you, because even the suggestion of the initial possibility needs to be based on evidence.
If, instead, you know Rob well and you happen to have a general understanding of his schedule and needs, you might respond with "It's possible he went to the store; last night he mentioned he ran out of toilet paper." This is an evidence-backed claim.
A claim about the state of nature is the same. Your knowledge leads you toward certain avenues of research, so you might think, "photons have properties x, y, z, so maybe they can travel at .5c, let me look into it." However, it would be improper to base your research on whim, like "I think photons are little gremlins and they run really fast, but can they run slow too?" Such a claim is not a claim about reality, it is arbitrary.
Claims about the world must be grounded in knowledge, and knowledge must be based on evidence.
If, instead, you know Rob well and you happen to have a general understanding of his schedule and needs, you might respond with "It's possible he went to the store; last night he mentioned he ran out of toilet paper." This is an evidence-backed claim.
A claim about the state of nature is the same. Your knowledge leads you toward certain avenues of research, so you might think, "photons have properties x, y, z, so maybe they can travel at .5c, let me look into it." However, it would be improper to base your research on whim, like "I think photons are little gremlins and they run really fast, but can they run slow too?" Such a claim is not a claim about reality, it is arbitrary.
Claims about the world must be grounded in knowledge, and knowledge must be based on evidence.
> photons have properties x, y, z, so maybe they can travel at .5c, let me look into it.
No, the claim about what is possible for a photon was much stronger. I am asserting now that photons can travel at .5c, full stop. I will not look into it, as I have already determined it is possible. I am not making a hypothesis about the universe, I am making a claim about how I believe it to actually work. Anyway, that is an aside.
I still think this just comes down to semantics about what is a claim about the world and what is a statement about uncertainty.
I interpret them saying something is possible as them making a statement about their own partial knowledge. I specifically do not interpret it as a claim about the world. I do interpret it as a claim about their own research and their own partial knowledge.
Their research does not demonstrate an impossibility. That is the claim they present. I still believe you are making a semantic interpretation of the word "possibility" that is different from the intent of the researchers. I think you are interpreting a stronger claim than the researchers are making.
Here is, for example, the same qualification as reported in a different article:
> Although, in this study, the researchers found that commercial cognitive training alone would not have an influence on one's decision-making process or cognitive abilities, they believe that it was still an avenue worthy of rigorous investigation.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170710135410.h...
No, the claim about what is possible for a photon was much stronger. I am asserting now that photons can travel at .5c, full stop. I will not look into it, as I have already determined it is possible. I am not making a hypothesis about the universe, I am making a claim about how I believe it to actually work. Anyway, that is an aside.
I still think this just comes down to semantics about what is a claim about the world and what is a statement about uncertainty.
I interpret them saying something is possible as them making a statement about their own partial knowledge. I specifically do not interpret it as a claim about the world. I do interpret it as a claim about their own research and their own partial knowledge.
Their research does not demonstrate an impossibility. That is the claim they present. I still believe you are making a semantic interpretation of the word "possibility" that is different from the intent of the researchers. I think you are interpreting a stronger claim than the researchers are making.
Here is, for example, the same qualification as reported in a different article:
> Although, in this study, the researchers found that commercial cognitive training alone would not have an influence on one's decision-making process or cognitive abilities, they believe that it was still an avenue worthy of rigorous investigation.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170710135410.h...
>It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it.
If you have no evidence against it, it is not irrational to believe something is possible.
If you have no evidence against it, it is not irrational to believe something is possible.
To believe something is possible, you must have some evidence for it. If you believe something without any evidence, you are dealing with arbitrary whims or claims.
If I claim there are tiny, sentient gnomes running around in my garden, I should have some evidence for that claim. If I insist it's possible without identifying any evidence, you would rightly conclude I'm insane.
You evaluation of evidence, or your logical process, could both be mistaken and so you might believe things that are not true. But if your belief is based on evidence, you can test it and revise your understanding.
If I claim there are tiny, sentient gnomes running around in my garden, I should have some evidence for that claim. If I insist it's possible without identifying any evidence, you would rightly conclude I'm insane.
You evaluation of evidence, or your logical process, could both be mistaken and so you might believe things that are not true. But if your belief is based on evidence, you can test it and revise your understanding.
I believe you're incorrectly conflating belief in possibility, and belief in reality. I don't believe there are tiny gnomes, but nothing about tiny gnomes causes me to disbelieve in the possibility of them. A hard claim, and a claim of possibility are entirely different.
> Given the context of the article, this is an unscientific and immoral statement.
It is neither unscientific nor immoral to note a popular belief which the study does not provide a basis for rejecting on which a conclusion might be likely to be improperly formed based on the study.
"May" is not a statement of positive belief.
It is neither unscientific nor immoral to note a popular belief which the study does not provide a basis for rejecting on which a conclusion might be likely to be improperly formed based on the study.
"May" is not a statement of positive belief.
The popularity of a belief does not grant validity to a claim.
"May" is a word that does not belong in scientific language. If there is evidence for a claim, you state it. If there evidence against it, you state it. If there is no evidence either way, you say "I don't know."
"May" implies something is possible without the burden of identifying the evidence that suggests that possibility.
Consider a different statement: assume there was a study that showed rhino horn is not effective in improving mental performance in young adults, and then you read "Rhino horn may still prove useful for those suffering from cancer, the researchers cautioned." How would you react?
"May" is a word that does not belong in scientific language. If there is evidence for a claim, you state it. If there evidence against it, you state it. If there is no evidence either way, you say "I don't know."
"May" implies something is possible without the burden of identifying the evidence that suggests that possibility.
Consider a different statement: assume there was a study that showed rhino horn is not effective in improving mental performance in young adults, and then you read "Rhino horn may still prove useful for those suffering from cancer, the researchers cautioned." How would you react?
I'm in the middle of planning a startup with a doctor who does research on therapy methods for traumatic brain injury. She frequently goes on rants about how much bullshit Lumosity is. So literal appeal to authority, but this particular authority was doing research at NIH for 17 years. I think she knows what she's doing.
Are there any that aren't bullshit?
I'm debating just setting up a spaced repetition app with my own custom knowledge base. At least that way I may not be getting higher brain function, but higher retention on memory items I care about.
I'm debating just setting up a spaced repetition app with my own custom knowledge base. At least that way I may not be getting higher brain function, but higher retention on memory items I care about.
Or...one, or all of these:
1.Learn a Second Language 2. https://projecteuler.net/archives 3. http://rosalind.info/problems/list-view/
If you are going to exercise your brain, you might as well get smarter and learn useful skills in the process.
1.Learn a Second Language 2. https://projecteuler.net/archives 3. http://rosalind.info/problems/list-view/
If you are going to exercise your brain, you might as well get smarter and learn useful skills in the process.
>If you are going to exercise your brain, you might as well get smarter and learn useful skills in the process.
One might argue that that's the only way to actually exercise your brain.
One might argue that that's the only way to actually exercise your brain.
If there are, they would be as difficult to recognize as germ theory to a 16th century doctor. We simply don't know enough yet about the mechanism.
Yeah, it's interesting. We have decades of research into standardized tests in the academic setting, and yet most people generally feel that these metrics have very limited utility.
The notion that a startup has A: deep insights into the nature of cognitive function that others do not; and B: devised and tested a paradigm that sustainably improves it, was always a little shocking to see claimed.
The notion that a startup has A: deep insights into the nature of cognitive function that others do not; and B: devised and tested a paradigm that sustainably improves it, was always a little shocking to see claimed.
You don't need germ theory to notice that washing your hands before performing surgery improves outcomes.
It helps. It's much easier to notice something and take it seriously when it fits a theory you already have. Kind of like if your house is haunted, you might not notice that the sounds you hear at night fit that theory unless you already have it in mind. If you try to understand the noises in terms of your house settling, a fugitive living in your attic, or an animal breaking in at night to steal food, you won't notice, or won't take seriously, the patterns that would be obvious to someone who believes in ghosts.
Yes, but you do need to start moving towards germ theory to understand why washing your hands with charcoal instead of soap results in dead patients again. Of course scientific theory and scientific observation are bootstrapped off of each other in the course of a dialectic, but raw statistics only get you so far until deductive work is required for the next steps, and the cycle repeats. It's easy to spot and distill in hindsight what is less obvious in the act; and when you've got as many variables as the human experience does, and as many ethical questions when you experiment with them, the process becomes all the more vague.
can you explain a bit about the charcoal/soap thing?
This is, if you will, a very germ-theoretic perspective. Why would you notice, by eye, this correlation and not that one? More importantly, why would you collect these data rather than those? Scientific paradigms are "nefarious" because they control experimental design, so unparadigmatic data only come about by accident. And accidental results are often as not a flaw in the design or instrumentation, or else "noise."
Of course it's easier if you have a viable theory to deduce efficient treatments. But the correlation between hand washing and medical outcome was noticed before germ theory, this is why I mentioned it. It didn't become popular until later though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Fair enough, and that guy's work was pretty close (in time) to the "germ revolution." The accounting of scientific revolutions is that anomalous results start getting common enough that people get uncomfortable calling them noise or faulty methodology. I'm not an expert in the history of paradigms of disease, but these results coming out were almost certainly part of what chipped away faith in miasma theory and, if you will, created the unease required for revolution.
Importantly, Semmelweis couldn't offer an explanation for why washing hands helped, which seems to have greatly hindered his credibility. I said you were offering a germ-theoretic perspective, because we do (and must do) the same thing: How else should we separate the spurious correlations from the important ones? How do we separate superstition from good practice? How do we tell the crackpots from the creative? If we suspend the germ theory, what if there was something else going on at the hospital, and hand-washing was just something this guy noticed and latched on to? Then you'd be giving people the wrong advice---which is, after all, one of many reasons that correlation is not causation.
Importantly, Semmelweis couldn't offer an explanation for why washing hands helped, which seems to have greatly hindered his credibility. I said you were offering a germ-theoretic perspective, because we do (and must do) the same thing: How else should we separate the spurious correlations from the important ones? How do we separate superstition from good practice? How do we tell the crackpots from the creative? If we suspend the germ theory, what if there was something else going on at the hospital, and hand-washing was just something this guy noticed and latched on to? Then you'd be giving people the wrong advice---which is, after all, one of many reasons that correlation is not causation.
[deleted]
Why not just build stuff and solve real life problems with all your effort? That in itself is brain training AND productive at the same time.
I mean, I do that. I build stuff (programs) in my off-time to solve problems I have. Eg, home automation, storage solutions, lots of cli utilities, etc.
As strange as it sounds though, I think this has been making me more... dumb. Sure, I'm improving a subset of skills, especially computer science related with some of the more challenging projects, but I don't feel more intelligent. I forget things constantly, and frankly my knowledge of the world seems to just.. fade. I'm becoming so hyper focused that it's hurting me.
That's why I mentioned spaced repetition. Not only do I want to improve my general brain functions, but I especially want to improve my recall of specific things. So I'm using a distributed database of mine as a way to keep a life journal. Anything I forget, I want to add to this knowledge journal, and try to ensure that I keep things in my mind.
As strange as it sounds though, I think this has been making me more... dumb. Sure, I'm improving a subset of skills, especially computer science related with some of the more challenging projects, but I don't feel more intelligent. I forget things constantly, and frankly my knowledge of the world seems to just.. fade. I'm becoming so hyper focused that it's hurting me.
That's why I mentioned spaced repetition. Not only do I want to improve my general brain functions, but I especially want to improve my recall of specific things. So I'm using a distributed database of mine as a way to keep a life journal. Anything I forget, I want to add to this knowledge journal, and try to ensure that I keep things in my mind.
...basically no.
Dual n-back was thought to be the only thing that worked, but even that now looks non-transferrable. (Gwern is great on this topic.) For young, healthy adults, I do not know of any brain exercise capable of directly raising IQ or its analogues.
You might, maybe, be able to boost neurogenesis. Exercise is a decent candidate for that, and I don't know the situation with drugs there. But I don't know of games that do it.
Realistically, you've got a few options. Your idea, spaced repetition of useful stuff, is great. Practicing memory tricks like mind palaces can improve your long-term memory on arbitrary facts. Picking up new topics dissimilar to the ones you know probably helps synthesis. Lots of things can maybe delay dementia. Meditation can improve focus and alertness.
All of those are worthwhile. The top-line, raise basic IQ stuff? To my knowledge doesn't exist.
Dual n-back was thought to be the only thing that worked, but even that now looks non-transferrable. (Gwern is great on this topic.) For young, healthy adults, I do not know of any brain exercise capable of directly raising IQ or its analogues.
You might, maybe, be able to boost neurogenesis. Exercise is a decent candidate for that, and I don't know the situation with drugs there. But I don't know of games that do it.
Realistically, you've got a few options. Your idea, spaced repetition of useful stuff, is great. Practicing memory tricks like mind palaces can improve your long-term memory on arbitrary facts. Picking up new topics dissimilar to the ones you know probably helps synthesis. Lots of things can maybe delay dementia. Meditation can improve focus and alertness.
All of those are worthwhile. The top-line, raise basic IQ stuff? To my knowledge doesn't exist.
Spaced repetition absolutely works. I can literally see it in the statistics as clear as day. This is in addition to all the scientific evidences.
It absolutely works to improve your recall of the test items, but who knows if it improves your short or long term memory in general.
That is, does it make it easier to recall things that are not part of the spaced repetition training?
That is, does it make it easier to recall things that are not part of the spaced repetition training?
I haven't seen any studies examining a broader transfer effect from spaced repetition. It seems unlikely - spaced repetition is just a hack of a normal memory mechanism for prioritizing factual knowledge, so why would explicit use of it have any generalized benefits? You are always being exposed to and remembering things, after all.
I'll cite your Hacker News comment in my next paper.
Can you link to one of your previous papers?
I dont think abstract games like luminosity work, but I think its fatalistic to assume that your intelligence is fixed at a certain point. You can no doubt expand your intelligence (not just knowledge) by expanding your horizons, but learning is a difficult process.
This... feels more like optimism than evidence.
You can improve your performance on almost any single task, which is great news. Certain forms of learning (e.g. language) help defer dementia, exercise and meditation improve focus, memory tricks improve recall, learning diverse topics improves synthesis.
But in terms of 'intelligence' in the clinical sense? Despite many people's efforts, I've never seen a single convincing success for healthy adults increasing their IQ. You can practice a specific test until it's inapplicable, but if you take one test, try to raise your IQ, and take another test, you won't see gains. Dual N-back is still the best thing known, and it doesn't work appreciably.
Fortunately, the practical stuff - memory, focus, breadth of knowledge - is awfully helpful in real life. But I've never seen any evidence at all that intelligence in the IQ sense can be raised in adults.
You can improve your performance on almost any single task, which is great news. Certain forms of learning (e.g. language) help defer dementia, exercise and meditation improve focus, memory tricks improve recall, learning diverse topics improves synthesis.
But in terms of 'intelligence' in the clinical sense? Despite many people's efforts, I've never seen a single convincing success for healthy adults increasing their IQ. You can practice a specific test until it's inapplicable, but if you take one test, try to raise your IQ, and take another test, you won't see gains. Dual N-back is still the best thing known, and it doesn't work appreciably.
Fortunately, the practical stuff - memory, focus, breadth of knowledge - is awfully helpful in real life. But I've never seen any evidence at all that intelligence in the IQ sense can be raised in adults.
Admittedly I have no evidence, but anecdotally when I started taking my health and diet seriously I feel like I gained about 10 IQ points just from fueling things better. Similarly, learning various mnemonics's and learning strategies has really helped my ability to learn more rapidly. You could argue that I'm simply capitalizing on my innate ability better -- and that would be true -- but the same argument would apply to gaining strength by training muscles. Nobody sees a muscular person thats ripped and thinks they just are lucky to be that way -- we recognize that there is both biology and effort in play, but for some reason people seem to think intelligence is pure biology. I cant prove my case, but im skeptical of that proposition.
No doubt people have different ceilings for their potential, but I feel like most people who are viewed as smart arent just leaning on natural talent, rather they've cultivated skills that get the most out of what they have
No doubt people have different ceilings for their potential, but I feel like most people who are viewed as smart arent just leaning on natural talent, rather they've cultivated skills that get the most out of what they have
I did dance around the lifestyle point a bit, for this reason. I've never seen a study on "we took otherwise-healthy people with bad habits and got them to eat, sleep, and exercise better", but I'd have higher hopes for that boosting healthy-adult IQ than literally anything else.
And I agree on the ambiguity around 'innate ability'. One could argue that general health is 'subtractive', that bad sleep/diet/exercise are drawing down potential that would exist otherwise. But that's far less clear-cut than something like "only works in dementia patients" or "only helps with Korsakoff Syndrome". I think there's something to it - lifting heavier weights and sleeping more are not unbounded sources of improvement - but I think it's also kind of a copout. If those things operate on a continuum, and people we consider "healthy adults" can still see benefits from them, that's what we wanted to find.
And I agree on the ambiguity around 'innate ability'. One could argue that general health is 'subtractive', that bad sleep/diet/exercise are drawing down potential that would exist otherwise. But that's far less clear-cut than something like "only works in dementia patients" or "only helps with Korsakoff Syndrome". I think there's something to it - lifting heavier weights and sleeping more are not unbounded sources of improvement - but I think it's also kind of a copout. If those things operate on a continuum, and people we consider "healthy adults" can still see benefits from them, that's what we wanted to find.
As you hint at in the last paragraph, IQ isn't the most important factor.
What one can actually accomplish is what matters most. If one is able to improve the layer above raw IQ, the fundamental mental models that provide the base for interpreting, analyzing, and synthesizing everything that happens to them, that would provide immense benefits.
It seems to me that is possible, to an extent. This is something I strive for, and I think I have made a bit of encouraging progress. Of course, evaluating this is... uh... not quite straight-forward, to say the least :)
What one can actually accomplish is what matters most. If one is able to improve the layer above raw IQ, the fundamental mental models that provide the base for interpreting, analyzing, and synthesizing everything that happens to them, that would provide immense benefits.
It seems to me that is possible, to an extent. This is something I strive for, and I think I have made a bit of encouraging progress. Of course, evaluating this is... uh... not quite straight-forward, to say the least :)
I am a lifetime member of lumosity for past few years. they used to have a beta-version game of "Dual-N-Back" which is the only one that might have some impact on brain. The irony is they removed it and keeping the useless ones; even keep modifying the UI of the same games again and again..
Dual N Back is a test of memory. Where is the evidence that practicing does anything besides decrease the accuracy of the test?
Here is the most comprehensive review of the DnB experiments I have ever seen:
https://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis
https://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis
>This is the website of Gwern Branwen, writer & independent researcher. I specialize in psychology, statistics, and technology
forgive me if i don't take this meta-analysis seriously.
forgive me if i don't take this meta-analysis seriously.
You may not have read any of Gwern's articles before. For many people, the quality of articles they've written in the past is high enough to give them (Gwern) quite a positive reputation. At least I'm likely to click on basically anything written by Gwern.
Critically if you actually read the article you can judge for yourself whether they know what they're talking about, as it's going to be both incredibly in depth and include disclosures of basically all caveats.
Critically if you actually read the article you can judge for yourself whether they know what they're talking about, as it's going to be both incredibly in depth and include disclosures of basically all caveats.
This is honestly kind of depressing to me. I've never used an app like Luminosity regularly but I like the idea that I could train my brain and improve my focus and memory. Neuroplasticity right? Well actually no :(
Neuroplasticity yes indeed; Lumosity users are at least getting better at Lumosity games. Generalization no.
So in general is there any thing that does help improve cognitive performance?
Well, you'll want to start by zeroing in on exactly what you mean by "cognitive performance." The abstract of the study the linked article is about has this to say:
>Pre- and post-training, participants completed cognitive assessments and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during performance of validated decision-making tasks: delay discounting (choices between smaller rewards now vs. larger rewards in the future) and risk sensitivity (choices between larger riskier rewards vs. smaller certain rewards).
You could certainly imagine doing things to get better at these kinds of tasks---including practicing these tasks. Whether this gets at some kind of murky "cognitive performance" thing depends on how much you're into phrenology and dualism.
Since it seems like you want a scientific answer to this question, you'll always have to confront the realities of experimental design, and because of that, you'll have to nail down exactly what it is you're after. And "cognitive performance" isn't nearly specific enough.
>Pre- and post-training, participants completed cognitive assessments and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during performance of validated decision-making tasks: delay discounting (choices between smaller rewards now vs. larger rewards in the future) and risk sensitivity (choices between larger riskier rewards vs. smaller certain rewards).
You could certainly imagine doing things to get better at these kinds of tasks---including practicing these tasks. Whether this gets at some kind of murky "cognitive performance" thing depends on how much you're into phrenology and dualism.
Since it seems like you want a scientific answer to this question, you'll always have to confront the realities of experimental design, and because of that, you'll have to nail down exactly what it is you're after. And "cognitive performance" isn't nearly specific enough.
[deleted]
It seems surprising to me that people agree you can increase focus and memory through exercise but not IQ. I would think that by increasing focus and memory your comprehension scores, for example, would increase dramatically. I know if I'm distracted my comprehension is way lower. Is that now how IQ tests work?
cmd+f luminosity results in nearly as many occurrences as lumosity. That name is cursed. Probably doesn't help that the correct name gets auto-corrected to the incorrect.
I have no idea what I'm talking about in this area, but the only brain games I've run into that I think might actually be helpful are the ones that are somewhat painful, e.g., BrainHQ. Definitely not fun. I start to sweat just thinking about some of the tasks in there.
Probably, no brain games at all boost IQ in healthy people. But some of them definitely help with memory, focus, etc, and I agree that those seem to be the hard ones.
Dual n-back, the general benchmark for these things, is hard. It's exhausting like intricate coding or a tough math proof is exhausting. Certainly I'd be suspicious of anything claiming to do better than that with less mental effort.
Dual n-back, the general benchmark for these things, is hard. It's exhausting like intricate coding or a tough math proof is exhausting. Certainly I'd be suspicious of anything claiming to do better than that with less mental effort.
I was involved in designing most of the BrainHQ tasks. They're supposed to make you sweat.
If luminosity challenges have any consistency at all, then you would think that users must perform better on luminosity challenged themselves.
A Luminosity recruiter contacted me after I left, and I asked for evidence that their research is actually helpful. They were very kind and passed along a number of studies that they'd done. I wasn't super impressed. Among other things, they were marketing their games to the general public, not the populations represented in their small studies. Quite honestly, aerobic exercise causes a huge upregulation of neurogenesis (and many other positive things), so people would be better off going for a light jog 2-3 times a week. It felt like they were taking advantage of families desperate to help a family member with dementia and willing to try anything.