21 replies to this topic

[babcock]

I'm not sure where else to put this topic so I'll give it a shot here.

Anyone know of any good brain building games or exercises found online? I've heard of a few but would like to get some input onto what might be the best. I'm looking at starting a noots regimen would like a quantitative way of measuring any "brain building" that occurs due to the noots. Was thinking that if I could get a few online brain games etc. that kept track of time/score/level of difficulty I could get an excel file going and measure my performance.

Let me know if you guys have any thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

[Eugene]

I'm not sure where else to put this topic so I'll give it a shot here.

Anyone know of any good brain building games or exercises found online? I've heard of a few but would like to get some input onto what might be the best. I'm looking at starting a noots regimen would like a quantitative way of measuring any "brain building" that occurs due to the noots. Was thinking that if I could get a few online brain games etc. that kept track of time/score/level of difficulty I could get an excel file going and measure my performance.

Let me know if you guys have any thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

It's all a corporate scam. You can do research yourself but let me save you time by saying its not consistent with neuroscience. Read, write, debate, listen to lectures, study. That's it. Don't waist your time. Anybody who sais otherwise just doesn't have the proper background.

[HMan]

I disagree with the previous poster.

There are brain games here: http://www.cognitivelabs.com

Cheers

[Eugene]

I disagree with the previous poster.

There are brain games here: http://www.cognitivelabs.com

Cheers

Do you have any authority to disagree? I am a little annoyed with wishful thinking of people with no proper background. If you don't have the education relevant to the topic, you should let the once who do speak. I know it seems simple when you know nothing about the brain. Ignorance breeds a kind of fallacious confidence. Everyone who starts out on the path of science has this kind of confidence that they know what they are talking about and than they get educated and the confidence vanishes.

Let me start with some fallacies.

1. Gray or white matter size correlates to function -- false(sometimes). Sometime it does, sometimes it doesn't. It is about the algorithms, and efficiency, not size. So when studies claim it increases gray matter, first ask where, and second ask why does it matter.
2. Improving one area of the brain will improve total function -- unbelievably false and is based on the idea that the brain is a kind of holistic machine - it is not. It is highly modularized and localized. The information is shared but there is no evidence that playing a music instrument would for example make you a better writer or reverse.
3. Working memory can improve with practice - false.
4. Long-term memory improves with memorizing things - false. Look instead into spaced repetition and related stuff.
5. It is worth spending your time doing something because it improves a certain function. False, because we are ignoring efficiency here. There are better and worse ways of doing it. Reading, writing and debating is far superior to any other people buy into.
6. The more activity in the certain brain area, the better it functions - false(sometimes). Sometimes it does, but very often it just means its running inefficiently.

There are exceptions and subtleties of course but they are far in between. By and large people are just believing what the corporation wants them to believe to sell the "cognition improving" toy. You are so much better of with nutrition, supplements, and the basics. People are just looking for an excuse to play video games and waist their time while justifying it with "it improves my brain". A convenient belief isn't it. Well guess what it is full of shit.

Edited by Eugene, 07 January 2010 - 07:03 PM.

[babcock]

I disagree with the previous poster.

There are brain games here: http://www.cognitivelabs.com

Cheers

Do you have any authority to disagree? I am a little annoyed with wishful thinking of people with no proper background. If you don't have the education relevant to the topic, you should let the once who do speak. I know it seems simple when you know nothing about the brain. Ignorance breeds a kind of fallacious confidence. Everyone who starts out on the path of science has this kind of confidence that they know what they are talking about and than they get educated and the confidence vanishes.

Let me start with some fallacies.

1. Gray or white matter size correlates to function -- false(sometimes). Sometime it does, sometimes it doesn't. It is about the algorithms, and efficiency, not size. So when studies claim it increases gray matter, first ask where, and second ask why does it matter.
2. Improving one area of the brain will improve total function -- unbelievably false and is based on the idea that the brain is a kind of holistic machine - it is not. It is highly modularized and localized. The information is shared but there is no evidence that playing a music instrument would for example make you a better writer or reverse.
3. Working memory can improve with practice - false.
4. Long-term memory improves with memorizing things - false. Look instead into spaced repetition and related stuff.
5. It is worth spending your time doing something because it improves a certain function. False, because we are ignoring efficiency here. There are better and worse ways of doing it. Reading, writing and debating is far superior to any other people buy into.
6. The more activity in the certain brain area, the better it functions - false(sometimes). Sometimes it does, but very often it just means its running inefficiently.

There are exceptions and subtleties of course but they are far in between. By and large people are just believing what the corporation wants them to believe to sell the "cognition improving" toy. You are so much better of with nutrition, supplements, and the basics. People are just looking for an excuse to play video games and waist their time while justifying it with "it improves my brain". A convenient belief isn't it. Well guess what it is full of shit.

I think you are overreacting, All I'm looking for is a qualitative way to gauge any progress noots would be having on my brain. For example, Let's take a basic memory tile game of 6x6. I assume you know what this is as you are clearly well researched. As a control I would start out in my current state without noot supplementation and perform a 6x6 memory game several times. Each time I would record the time it took me to complete the matches and how many incorrect attempts I had. Next I would start supplementing with noots and each day perform the memory game several times each time recording the resultant "time to complete" and "incorrect attempts". My hypothesis would be that my "time to complete" and 'incorrect attempts" would both decrease as I continued my noot supplementation for a longer period of time.

This is called a "scientific process", an area which I am very familiar with as it is a major part of my job. All I was looking for in this post was hopefully a few posts with people describing tools that they have come across that might help me qualify legitimate results. I guess my OP wasn't specific enough and for that I apologize. I think your attack on HMan is unwarranted as all he was doing was answering politely and correctly to the best of his abilities to the OP.

HMan, thank you for your suggestion and I will give it a look as it was far more helpful and relevant to me than Eugenes condescending post.

Edited by babcock, 07 January 2010 - 07:19 PM.

[Eugene]

I disagree with the previous poster.

There are brain games here: http://www.cognitivelabs.com

Cheers

Do you have any authority to disagree? I am a little annoyed with wishful thinking of people with no proper background. If you don't have the education relevant to the topic, you should let the once who do speak. I know it seems simple when you know nothing about the brain. Ignorance breeds a kind of fallacious confidence. Everyone who starts out on the path of science has this kind of confidence that they know what they are talking about and than they get educated and the confidence vanishes.

Let me start with some fallacies.

1. Gray or white matter size correlates to function -- false(sometimes). Sometime it does, sometimes it doesn't. It is about the algorithms, and efficiency, not size. So when studies claim it increases gray matter, first ask where, and second ask why does it matter.
2. Improving one area of the brain will improve total function -- unbelievably false and is based on the idea that the brain is a kind of holistic machine - it is not. It is highly modularized and localized. The information is shared but there is no evidence that playing a music instrument would for example make you a better writer or reverse.
3. Working memory can improve with practice - false.
4. Long-term memory improves with memorizing things - false. Look instead into spaced repetition and related stuff.
5. It is worth spending your time doing something because it improves a certain function. False, because we are ignoring efficiency here. There are better and worse ways of doing it. Reading, writing and debating is far superior to any other people buy into.
6. The more activity in the certain brain area, the better it functions - false(sometimes). Sometimes it does, but very often it just means its running inefficiently.

There are exceptions and subtleties of course but they are far in between. By and large people are just believing what the corporation wants them to believe to sell the "cognition improving" toy. You are so much better of with nutrition, supplements, and the basics. People are just looking for an excuse to play video games and waist their time while justifying it with "it improves my brain". A convenient belief isn't it. Well guess what it is full of shit.

I think you are overreacting, All I'm looking for is a qualitative way to gauge any progress noots would be having on my brain. For example, Let's take a basic memory tile game of 6x6. I assume you know what this is as you are clearly well researched. As a control I would start out in my current state without noot supplementation and perform a 6x6 memory game several times. Each time I would record the time it took me to complete the matches and how many incorrect attempts I had. Next I would start supplementing with noots and each day perform the memory game several times each time recording the resultant "time to complete" and "incorrect attempts". My hypothesis would be that my "time to complete" and 'incorrect attempts" would both decrease as I continued my noot supplementation for a longer period of time.

This is called a "scientific process", an area which I am very familiar with as it is a major part of my job. All I was looking for in this post was hopefully a few posts with people describing tools that they have come across that might help me qualify legitimate results. I guess my OP wasn't specific enough and for that I apologize. I think your attack on HMan is unwarranted as all he was doing was answering politely and correctly to the best of his abilities to the OP.

HMan, thank you for your suggestion and I will give it a look as it was far more helpful and relevant to me than Eugenes condescending post.

Do you really fail to see the problem with this? Sure it will improve, the question I would ask is -- does it translate anywhere else outside of this particular game. Also i have no doubt that certain chemicals can improve this task, but the question is does the task itself improve it, or does the chemical? It is a known fact that people remember familiar concepts that they deem important(had a lot of exposure to) as opposed to meaningless fact to them. If you play this game enough, the brain will start registering these pictures of what not as important, but is that really what you aim for?

Show me research that manages to control for all this and than we will talk.

And there is a difference between condescending and realistic. Just because what i said goes against your desired beliefs, doesn't mean i am wrong.

[carwashguy]

Dual n-back seems like a pretty good bet. Fluid intelligence, or Gf, is said to be the ability to reason, think abstractly, solve problems, etc. When you do a training program, your brain becomes more efficient over time at preforming that specific task, which means it doesn't actually improve your Gf (if I'm understanding this correctly). Dual n-back is said to actually improve your Gf. It's really freaking hard, too.

From Wikipedia,

The dual-task n-back task was proposed by Susanne Jaeggi et al. in 2003.[2] In this variation, two independent sequences are presented simultaneously, typically using different types of stimuli, such as one auditory and one visual.
In a 2008 research paper Jaeggi et al. claim that practicing a dual n-back task can increase fluid intelligence, as measured in several different standard tests.[3] This resulted in some attention from popular media, including an article in Wired.[4] The paper's methodology has been criticized by David Moody[5]. He draws attention to the fact that different tests were used to evaluate the control and test groups. Due to the way in which the tests were administered, he also questions whether they were valid tests of fluid intelligence. For example, the progressive nature of the tests was undermined by severe time-restriction.
In 2009, it was reported in Science that '14 hours of training over 5 weeks' led to measurable density changes for cortical dopamine neuroreceptors.[6]

Edited by carwashguy, 08 January 2010 - 03:58 PM.

[Thales]

I disagree with the previous poster.

There are brain games here: http://www.cognitivelabs.com

Cheers

Do you have any authority to disagree? I am a little annoyed with wishful thinking of people with no proper background. If you don't have the education relevant to the topic, you should let the once who do speak. I know it seems simple when you know nothing about the brain. Ignorance breeds a kind of fallacious confidence. Everyone who starts out on the path of science has this kind of confidence that they know what they are talking about and than they get educated and the confidence vanishes.

Assuming you have an education in science, it follows that you no longer have this misplaced confidence that you know what you are talking about(based on your assumptions.) You present your ideas like you have confidence in the soundness of your beliefs, and because you are no longer vulnerable to having this unjustified confidence, I assume it must be justified confidence.

If it is justified then you must have good reason for not accepting the validity of the many studies demonstrating that working memory and executive-function can be improved with far transfer. Just asserting that it is not possible is not very helpful. If you can't elaborate then maybe you haven't read the research, in which case you do not have an education in science or you are wrong that fallacious confidence vanishes with an education in science.

Edited by Thales, 10 January 2010 - 11:06 AM.

[medicineman]

While I BELIEVE he is correct regarding most of his post, I think working memory may improve but not significantly. In the last issue of scientific american mind, there was a study done on students regarding grey/white matter ratio, and the students who scored higher on intelligence tests usually have a higher grey/white matter ratio, but I am not sure if anything can alter the ratio other than genetics....

bottom line, research is poor into areas of cognitive enhancement programs, except from the ones selling it, and therefore the evidence so far is not conclusive, or even close. im not saying it is worthless, but im saying no research has it set on stone.

still, dualnbacking is probably a better cognitive enhancing program than 50 hours of fallout 3 (which I felt hurt my cognition due to loss of sleep, loss of reading and studying, and too much caffeine, and a lack of showering)

pianists exhibit increased activity in certain areas in the brain regarding hand coordination, and so do violinists.. so doing something alot improves whatever you are doing really, but the whole gFactor thing is a dodgy topic anyways, and I rather not get into it..... decide for yourself..

but I fully agree regarding reading, writing, and debating. These activities have noticeably improved many aspects of my thinking (I wouldn't say intelligence, because I am not sure if that is the case).. i do dualnback occasionally, but thats because it is free and I get very competitive with the damn program sometimes (i can be a bit sad)

Edited by medicineman, 10 January 2010 - 03:37 PM.

[spider]

I'm looking at starting a noots regimen would like a quantitative way of measuring any "brain building" that occurs due to the noots.

Speedreading... measuring your w/m.

[medicineman]

i dont think speedreading is a good way to quantify the effects of noots...... you will speedread with equal proficiency if you practice, with or without noots, and thats just first hand experience.... speed reading can be achieved via methods which work with or without noots I THINK...

if you are learning a foreign language, you can possibly notice increased understanding and recall of vocab.... im learning french, and I think noots are making my life easier......

[Pike]

unrelated to the main topic at hand: where would i start off if i was interested in learning how to speed-read? i already read about a couple hours a day anyway, so the idea sounds intriguing to me.

[medicineman]

For me, I got this book, and I can read with good comprehension 550-600 wpm, anything more, and I lose comprehension.

Basically it focuses on elimination of subvocalization (which I suspect was not the cause of slow reading), using a marker to 'swipe' over materials being read, being able to filter out words like this, the, and, etc. since your mind is automatically able to fill in the gaps, and basically increasing your field of vision, so that you can look over one complete sentence without moving your head............ I know it sounds obvious, but the amount of time you actually go back over material and focus on irrelevancies is outstanding, that they are a major hindrance to an optimum reading speed.

https://www.mindtools.com/speedrd.html
http://english.glend...us/methods.html
http://www.jimmyr.co...ding88_2006.php (article about speedreading)
http://www.videojug....w-to-speed-read (a short video summarizing what most books say, a bit cheesy but worth a watch)


There are few other sites. It is a controversial topic, many skeptics exist. Personally, I don't think you can go over a certain speed without losing comprehension, and you practice until you realize your optimum speed, at which anything above becomes detrimental to understanding..

[babcock]

unrelated to the main topic at hand: where would i start off if i was interested in learning how to speed-read? i already read about a couple hours a day anyway, so the idea sounds intriguing to me.

spreeder.com

You can copy and paste text into the web app and then select how fast you want that text to be displayed (one word at a time) to you. Then it plays the pasted section in front of you. Probably one of the best ways to learn how to speed read.

[medicineman]

excellent. thanks for the link...

[spider]

i dont think speedreading is a good way to quantify the effects of noots...... you will speedread with equal proficiency if you practice, with or without noots, and thats just first hand experience.... speed reading can be achieved via methods which work with or without noots I THINK...

High concentration is extremely important while speedreading. You can imagine you can not afford to be thinking of something else for a second while reading a couple of thousand words per minute over the pages. You will propable loose the main line and most certainly important details.

A very well functioning short-memory comes into play when I review quickly a unit. I switch my brainwaves from alpha to beta. The nootropics have improved my ability to recall, organize the concepts and to comprehend the unit. The beter the recall; the less repetitions are needed.

So, improvements in concentration and short-term memory (cuased by a nootropic) will for sure be expressed in a higher reading speed.

unrelated to the main topic at hand: where would i start off if i was interested in learning how to speed-read? i already read about a couple hours a day anyway, so the idea sounds intriguing to me.

Finally, I had to search for a while but found them.
The Evelyn Wood 7-Day Speed Reading & Learning program by S.D. Frank.
Super Reading Secrets by H.S. Berg.
And the Tony Buzan books are good also.

Edited by spider, 13 January 2010 - 06:16 PM.

[babcock]

To get back to the topic of the original post, I have started using the following "games" to benchmark my current unsupplemented diet. All the games can be found at

http://www.onlinegam...braingames.html

I play each of these games 5 times in a row and then average the scores I get in the games. Most of them are memory related however there is one "visual memory" (which i guess is memory technically) and one "reaction based game. They are as follows:

Balls and Boxes Memory Game
Blind Spot Visual Memory Game
Lightning Speed reaction Time Game
Memory Game
Memory Game II
Memory Game III ( I only play this one 3x due to the length of the game)
Moon Cakes
Pattern Memory Game
Sequence Memory Game

This week I am playing these games every day to get a baseline control. Next week I will begin my Noot regimen and continue to play these games and test my results. Some games may be weighted less than others as I am already finding I can just about get a perfect score on "Memory Game" minus the points lost for revealing the cards for the first time. Some of these games are definitely more challenging than others and I plan to take that into consideration when looking at the results.

I decided not to do the dual n back game right now as I think the point of that game is more to improve brain cognition rather than test it. Right now I'm trying to lock down what benefits (if any) Noots can provide by stimulating what I already have (for brain matter).

Any comments would be appreciated.

[kassem23]

www.lumosity.com Everybody have their claims.

[Solarclimax]

@babcock ..Good stuff in doing this and letting us in on the results, how do you know that next week you won't suddenly get a bit better at 1 or more of the games. Then lets say any nootropics you take, unknowingly to you, have nothing but placebo effect. How do you know you won't wrongly attribute any increase to nootropics ? All i can think of is, try and honestly project any predicted scores, and then only attribute any increase to nootropics if you can honestly say that such and such score is more than likely above what should be expected, when factoring in natural progression. This is going to be hard to get any accurate results from IMO, because diff noots take diff amounts of time to work and even different times again when comparing person to person. It could be that you do it for 2 weeks, and think right these don't work, then on the first day of the 3rd week lets say (just to be dramatic) that the power of the noots kick in, at which point you stop the test and render them useless. Just some thoughts.

Edited by Solarclimax, 11 March 2010 - 05:37 PM.

[Rain]

www.lumosity.com Everybody have their claims.

i was going to suggest this as soon as i saw the thread title.

yep lumosity is really good, it shows brain development in areas over time plus it's pretty fun, maybe you'll see a huge increase in all your games played when on piracetam compared to being off it!

let us know how it goes haha if it try it

[Heisenberg]

gbrainy
Brain Workshop (x n-back)
Brain Age
IQ Trainer (wordofmouthexperiment.com)
Eye Q (speed reading program)

All those seem useful. I have certainly found them to speed up my thinking and reaction time, but it is critical not to waste too much time playing them

[Leukippos]

@babcock ..Good stuff in doing this and letting us in on the results, how do you know that next week you won't suddenly get a bit better at 1 or more of the games. Then lets say any nootropics you take, unknowingly to you, have nothing but placebo effect. How do you know you won't wrongly attribute any increase to nootropics ? All i can think of is, try and honestly project any predicted scores, and then only attribute any increase to nootropics if you can honestly say that such and such score is more than likely above what should be expected, when factoring in natural progression. This is going to be hard to get any accurate results from IMO, because diff noots take diff amounts of time to work and even different times again when comparing person to person. It could be that you do it for 2 weeks, and think right these don't work, then on the first day of the 3rd week lets say (just to be dramatic) that the power of the noots kick in, at which point you stop the test and render them useless. Just some thoughts.

I did this (loosely) with piracetam and Brain Challenge. It didn't affect performance much.

Edited by Leukippos, 25 September 2010 - 09:35 PM.