1
$\begingroup$

I've been reading on n-back's non-transferable working memory training, but if it's just used as a method of measuring the subject's working memory is it a good measurement? Personally, I have a poor working memory, easily forgetting what I was just speaking, how the arguments arrive at certain point, what I was just thinking that is important like a few seconds ago. Currently I've been playing n-back from time to time, and I am stuck on dual 3-back forever, never really able to pass through dual 4-back. Typically I don't have a habit of remembering stuff because I can always look up from search engines, and I take digital notes.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate of Is "brain training" effective? $\endgroup$ – Arnon Weinberg Feb 14 '18 at 18:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What have you been reading exactly (include a link) and what is it you have learned from that which makes you ask this question? $\endgroup$ – Steven Jeuris Feb 15 '18 at 9:05
0
$\begingroup$

Yes. n-back performance correlates with short-term memory capacity as measured by standard tests. However, there is no standard implementation of the n-back task, which is why the literature is fairly inconsistent. Because it is not administered in a standardized fashion, it is not a good test that is comparable between studies. However, it is often used in working memory training.

Here is a paper that is critical of the n-back task. To be fair, although there is scientific consensus that there is insufficient evidence that "brain training" is effective, this is a publication from one of the more skeptical (which is a good thing) research groups. In this regard my example is somewhat biased, but I am open to discussing other perspectives. The group has also published some quite excellent criticism of how training experiments are not always well-designed, but I digress...

In cognitive training, it is important to distinguish between tasks that are optimized for testing and tasks that are optimized for training. A test task should optimally not vary in performance. The retest reliability should be high, while a training task should optimally improve performance over time and induce neuroplasticity in a consistent manner.

It is still open what makes a training task efficient. Some suggestions have been made, but criticized to an equal degree. One such concept is adaptive tasks. This describes when a task adapts the difficulty to the user depending on the user's previous performance. In summary, different n-back tasks vary in design and thus may vary in efficiency.

The problems of far and near transfer remain. Sometimes a battery of different tasks are administered simultaneously, but in such cases it becomes more difficult to attribute improvement on performance to specific tasks.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.