Comment · Thu, August 29, 2013 · Ceretropic
If Dual-N-Back training can truly improve working memory, why doesn't it appear to improve Gf?
Original post in this thread
[deleted] · 8 points
After perusing some of the relevant literature, it appears that the general consensus on DNB training is that it's able to increase WM (or at least some aspect of WM), but does not seem to increase fluid intelligence in young, healthy adults (although a lot more research in this area is clearly needed).
It's well established that WMC is highly correlated with Gf. I personally don't think that fluid intelligence and the capacity for learning is purely WMC, but WM certainly seems to be a large contributor to fluid intelligence. I would find it hard to believe that a significant increase in working memory, at its core, would not correspond to a significant increase in Gf.
So, why doesn't DNB appear to increase Gf, as measured by tests of "far transfer" like RAPM? Does this suggest that DNB training is only improving on a certain aspect of WM? Are DNB gains simply a product of learning/practice effects? Is WMC merely a correlate of Gf? etc.
Thoughts?
What they were answering
ThoughtfulJoker · 1 points
Yeah, I see what you are saying. I still its probably them thinking on something. Plenty of people are absent minded when thinking on something else, obviously.
I think in line with my above sketched theory off the back of interactions could offer a suggestion.
Brilliant minds have great memory for abstract concepts, or brilloant concepts, whichever, as that is what they train. But might have very poor memory at say, bus directories, becuase its simply something that dont train for, thus their memory doesnt do well.
This would make a lot of sense, suggesting that you only have good memory for what you use, rather than generalised memory traits. So not only can one be encumbered by usage of memory, but storage and retrieval of memory type.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
Ok, that logic makes a lot of sense. It's not that the mechanism for fluid intelligence is interfering with the memory storage. It's simply the fact that they do not train for that type of memory storage. If that were the case, brain training should be able to increase their memory capacity in those areas, without affecting their ability to process other data.
Unless there is some sort of throughput limit on that pathway, like a bus between a CPU and memory. However, I don't think that's the case. I do often wonder if computer technology loosely mirrors the way our brain processes information, since human brains came up with it.