Comments on: To Chunk Or Not To Chunk: Not One, But Two Questions http://www.mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/brain-exercises/to-chunk-or-not-to-chunk-not-one-but-two-questions/ Working Memory Brain Training with Dual n-back Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:59:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Will http://www.mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/brain-exercises/to-chunk-or-not-to-chunk-not-one-but-two-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-1392 Will Thu, 21 May 2009 11:20:06 +0000 http://mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/?p=1283#comment-1392 Going back to the Baddeley Hitch model of WM, it seems as if phonological processing requires rehearsing of information before it decays in memory storage. This in itself is not what is difficult about WM. It's doing this AND paying attention to incoming information. I agree with Rupert that there's value to improving short term storage in and of itself, but disagree that the dual n-back is the proper exercise to work on the storage aspect. I'd argue this is the difference between short term and working memory; that the latter requires rehearsal of the old amid new flows of information. As Martin points out, correctly I think, this is what high level cognition requires of us. Another question to ask: Why is digit span backwards so much more G loaded than Digit span forwards? Digit span forwards is a span task and digit span backwards is WM task. DS Backwards means you have to store and rehearse thereby requiring far more concentration rather than parrot the data back. I think dual n back mirrors DS backwards in this regard, and even more challenging given its dual nature. Going back to the Baddeley Hitch model of WM, it seems as if phonological processing requires rehearsing of information before it decays in memory storage. This in itself is not what is difficult about WM. It’s doing this AND paying attention to incoming information. I agree with Rupert that there’s value to improving short term storage in and of itself, but disagree that the dual n-back is the proper exercise to work on the storage aspect. I’d argue this is the difference between short term and working memory; that the latter requires rehearsal of the old amid new flows of information. As Martin points out, correctly I think, this is what high level cognition requires of us.

Another question to ask: Why is digit span backwards so much more G loaded than Digit span forwards? Digit span forwards is a span task and digit span backwards is WM task. DS Backwards means you have to store and rehearse thereby requiring far more concentration rather than parrot the data back. I think dual n back mirrors DS backwards in this regard, and even more challenging given its dual nature.

]]> By: Shaun Luttin http://www.mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/brain-exercises/to-chunk-or-not-to-chunk-not-one-but-two-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-1389 Shaun Luttin Thu, 21 May 2009 00:25:20 +0000 http://mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/?p=1283#comment-1389 My thoughts... Well, just a comment on what Martin talked about. First, thanks Martin for considering chunking further. I appreciate that. Second, perhaps another term like "trimming" could work instead of "sub-sequencing". Third, if sub-sequencing doesn't create meaningful chunks, then sub-sequencing isn't using LT memory at all. When we are faced with n=11, rehearsing two sub-sequences of seven and four probably uses the same amount of working-memory as rehearsing the whole sequence of eleven does. If the sub-sequences are meaningless, then it's all working memory. Warm regards, Shaun My thoughts…

Well, just a comment on what Martin talked about.

First, thanks Martin for considering chunking further. I appreciate that.

Second, perhaps another term like “trimming” could work instead of “sub-sequencing”.

Third, if sub-sequencing doesn’t create meaningful chunks, then sub-sequencing isn’t using LT memory at all. When we are faced with n=11, rehearsing two sub-sequences of seven and four probably uses the same amount of working-memory as rehearsing the whole sequence of eleven does. If the sub-sequences are meaningless, then it’s all working memory.

Warm regards,
Shaun

]]> By: nanz http://www.mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/brain-exercises/to-chunk-or-not-to-chunk-not-one-but-two-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-1388 nanz Wed, 20 May 2009 21:15:52 +0000 http://mindsparke.com/brain-training-blog/?p=1283#comment-1388 Hmmm...I have tried both methods: dividing into smaller parts and of rehearsal.. neither worked very well for me. I may not come from a place of power here since I am only working on n=6...but here are my 2 cents. I seem to be most successful (so far) with remembering strings like a song. As I replay the last song in my head I am learning a new song. And the key here is I do not rehearse the song to learn it...I put in one sound at a time...A then B then C then D...not continually A, AB, ABC, ABCD...does that make sense? So I think this is another way to "remember". Time will tell if this is a successful method for longer strings. Your thoughts...?? nanz Hmmm…I have tried both methods: dividing into smaller parts and of rehearsal.. neither worked very well for me. I may not come from a place of power here since I am only working on n=6…but here are my 2 cents. I seem to be most successful (so far) with remembering strings like a song. As I replay the last song in my head I am learning a new song. And the key here is I do not rehearse the song to learn it…I put in one sound at a time…A then B then C then D…not continually A, AB, ABC, ABCD…does that make sense? So I think this is another way to “remember”. Time will tell if this is a successful method for longer strings. Your thoughts…??
nanz

]]>