Discuss - 10 - 20 sessions of doing n-back task raises fluid IQ as measured with RavensBack
|(#1) By Chet on Sat 02/04/2012 06:57 pm CST (1 year ago)|
I think Engle presented a non-replication of this at Psychonomics in November 2011.
|(#2) By randallengle on Mon 02/06/2012 08:24 am CST (1 year ago)|
Yes, I did and my presentation slides are available if you email me at email@example.com. The paper is under the second review so I am waiting until that decision before I post anything about it. I love this web site - it is a great idea. One detail that remains to be resolved is whether editors consider posting something here as preventing them publishing a paper based on the data from the attempted replication.
|(#3) By callmad on Sun 05/06/2012 05:11 am CDT (1 year ago)|
|n-back practice with seniors|
I am working with 20 people aged range 60 - 80. 3 months ago I compiled a series of 6 mini-tests to evaluate the functioning of participants on things like the Stroop Test, mathematical calculations, and memory for words. I obtained permission from the compiler of MindSparke an n-back cognitive training program, to make copies. The participants have been given their own copy of the program and they are encouraged to practice 3 times a week for 20 minutesie 1 hour per week minimum.
This is intended to be an ongoing life time cognitive gym! I will re-evaluate the functionaliy on the same tests at 6 monthly intervals to see if there is a performance change. Participants attend a monthly 2 hour meeting at which we discuss the theory and practice of cognitive training. The meetings encourage motivation and a theoretical understanding of their training. They are introduced to new and novel ways to stimulate their brain eg sudoku, kenken, setgame, origami, mathematical puzzles, computerised jig-saw puzzles and word games. They are also incouraged to visit the Khan Academy and choose some lessons that would be of interest and report back to the group. The presentations on TED are also used as an educational and stimulating addition.
|(#4) By dcokeman on Sun 05/06/2012 07:33 am CDT (1 year ago)|
|Maybe we can increase height, too|
Since so many people desperately want non-biological factors to explain brain function, maybe we can increase height and get hair color to naturally change by training. Hey, this is just as reasonable as Flowers for Algernon. There is no biological basis of race, we are told, but then we are told that color of skin does make immuatable differences that teachers need to be "sensitive to." Hmm.
|(#5) By Eric Rasmusen on Sun 05/06/2012 07:49 pm CDT (1 year ago)|
|Ambiguity of the post's question,|
Great idea for a post! Since I don't see a way to post generally, I'll comment here, even tho it's not about this study. The question is:"What are important studies that your field of Psychology gives credence to, but which--as far as you know--have not been replicated in any published follow-up work?"
There are two kinds of Non-replication that are very different.
(1) Has anyone even TRIED to replicate it? (For example, the Milgram experiment is tough to check on given our current anti-scientific human-subject rules, though there have been good efforts to try to match it.)
(2) Has the experiment been re-performed, but with different results?(Especially if it has been frequently re-attempted and the original result has never been repeated, but the original results still get cited a lot.)
|(#6) By randallengle on Thu 05/17/2012 07:06 pm CDT (1 year ago)|
|failure to replicate Jaeggi et al 2008|
Our paper based on the failure to replicate the Jaeggi et al. (2008) paper was just accepted by JEP:G. The first author is Tom Redick who did all the heavy lifting on this paper and I am proud of him for perservering against the tough odds of getting a replication failure published. If you want a copy of the paper (what we old coots used to call a 'preprint') email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or Tom Redick at email@example.com.
|(#7) By Jack on Tue 08/21/2012 10:40 am CDT (9 months ago)|
|Failure to replicate by Chooi & Thompson|
A non-replication by Chooi & Thompson has been published in Intelligence, 40 (2012), 531-542 ("Working memory training does not improve intelligence in healthy young adults").
|(#8) By James Gambrell on Tue 09/11/2012 01:10 pm CDT (8 months ago)|
|Even if this finding were true...|
A higher Raven's score after an intervention hardly implies higher Gf. The authors confuse constructs with vehicles (Jensen, 1998). Their 10-minute RPM amounts to basically 10 items worth of generalization. All of the increase could be caused by a single transformation that applies to a couple items. Gf is a factor, and should be extracted from at least 3 indicators, ideally with 20 or more items each. Even that would constitute rather weak evidence of Gf increase, strong evidence would require long-term outcomes. How in the world does a study like that get into PNAS? It appears to me that the only reason this rather silly study is being targeted for replication is the high profile journal.
|(#9) By Daniel Bor on Thu 11/29/2012 03:18 pm CST (6 months ago)|
Just to add that an article I was an author on has produced a (conceptual) replication of the Jaeggi finding. It's not exactly the same paradigm, but also uses a dual n-back training procedure, and finds an IQ increase following training. Published in PLOS ONE (so open access) and available here: