Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: cognitivefun.net

Stories and comments across the archive that link to cognitivefun.net.

Comments · 11

  1. Re:Speed of light by TheLink · · Score: 1 · on Speed of Sound Is Too Slow For the Olympics

    80ms? That seems rather high. If I set my mouse button to 3ms response[1], I get a min of 141 ( typical 156ms) from visual for: http://cognitivefun.net/test/1
    (try looking at stimuli from side of eye)

    I doubt my audio reaction time would be 70ms. I get about the same (153ms, typical min 156-169) for the audio test: http://cognitivefun.net/test/16

    That said the audio tests might be flawed on windows because of the high latency way sound is done. So maybe the audio test adds 80ms to the score.

    [1] For some reason the default is 16ms, which is significant for some games. The rest of the system is important too - screen latency. So a lot of the higher scores might be due to people having crappy LCD screens and mice/keyboards.

    Interesting note: using the spacebar on my keyboard brings my min score up to about 200ms! Even if I use the same hand and finger as with the mouse. So I guess my PS/2 keyboard sucks and adds about 40-50ms[2], my mouse is a cheap gaming (1000Hz) a4tech usb mouse, so nothing that fancy.

    [2] Could be because of bounce delay:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mechanical-switch-keyboard,2955-5.html

  2. Re:Speed of light by TheLink · · Score: 1 · on Speed of Sound Is Too Slow For the Olympics

    80ms? That seems rather high. If I set my mouse button to 3ms response[1], I get a min of 141 ( typical 156ms) from visual for: http://cognitivefun.net/test/1
    (try looking at stimuli from side of eye)

    I doubt my audio reaction time would be 70ms. I get about the same (153ms, typical min 156-169) for the audio test: http://cognitivefun.net/test/16

    That said the audio tests might be flawed on windows because of the high latency way sound is done. So maybe the audio test adds 80ms to the score.

    [1] For some reason the default is 16ms, which is significant for some games. The rest of the system is important too - screen latency. So a lot of the higher scores might be due to people having crappy LCD screens and mice/keyboards.

    Interesting note: using the spacebar on my keyboard brings my min score up to about 200ms! Even if I use the same hand and finger as with the mouse. So I guess my PS/2 keyboard sucks and adds about 40-50ms[2], my mouse is a cheap gaming (1000Hz) a4tech usb mouse, so nothing that fancy.

    [2] Could be because of bounce delay:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mechanical-switch-keyboard,2955-5.html

  3. Re:Self Selected groups by TheLink · · Score: 4, Informative · on Cognitive Software Identifies America's Brainiest Cities

    And those who bother to sign up. You don't have to sign up for some games but in my short time there I got a fair number of "sign up" prompts.

    Whereas this site doesn't require you to sign up: http://cognitivefun.net/

  4. Re:Counting? by TheLink · · Score: 2 · on Study Suggests the Number-Line Concept Is Not Intuitive

    A lot of neuroscientists reckon we can process about 4 separate things in our mind simultaneously

    I think it depends on the sort of processing you need to do with those things and how long you have to do it:
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/28
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/7
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/3
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/4
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/8
    Apparently you can train yourself to do it better, and some research claims that "dual n-back" (and n-back) training can also increase your "fluid intelligence".
    FWIW I've got much better at the single "n-back" where n=2, after just a few tries over a day or two. I haven't even bothered trying n=4 for that - won't be able to do it without significant practice! Whereas n=5 or more for the simpler tests are trivial.

    I find another thing curious - either my reflexes have improved by 20-30ms or the first PC I tried it out on has 20-30ms more lag (screen+mouse+etc). I suspect the latter - could I really have improved my reflexes over a day or two?

  5. Re:Counting? by TheLink · · Score: 2 · on Study Suggests the Number-Line Concept Is Not Intuitive

    A lot of neuroscientists reckon we can process about 4 separate things in our mind simultaneously

    I think it depends on the sort of processing you need to do with those things and how long you have to do it:
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/28
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/7
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/3
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/4
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/8
    Apparently you can train yourself to do it better, and some research claims that "dual n-back" (and n-back) training can also increase your "fluid intelligence".
    FWIW I've got much better at the single "n-back" where n=2, after just a few tries over a day or two. I haven't even bothered trying n=4 for that - won't be able to do it without significant practice! Whereas n=5 or more for the simpler tests are trivial.

    I find another thing curious - either my reflexes have improved by 20-30ms or the first PC I tried it out on has 20-30ms more lag (screen+mouse+etc). I suspect the latter - could I really have improved my reflexes over a day or two?

  6. Re:Counting? by TheLink · · Score: 2 · on Study Suggests the Number-Line Concept Is Not Intuitive

    A lot of neuroscientists reckon we can process about 4 separate things in our mind simultaneously

    I think it depends on the sort of processing you need to do with those things and how long you have to do it:
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/28
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/7
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/3
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/4
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/8
    Apparently you can train yourself to do it better, and some research claims that "dual n-back" (and n-back) training can also increase your "fluid intelligence".
    FWIW I've got much better at the single "n-back" where n=2, after just a few tries over a day or two. I haven't even bothered trying n=4 for that - won't be able to do it without significant practice! Whereas n=5 or more for the simpler tests are trivial.

    I find another thing curious - either my reflexes have improved by 20-30ms or the first PC I tried it out on has 20-30ms more lag (screen+mouse+etc). I suspect the latter - could I really have improved my reflexes over a day or two?

  7. Re:Counting? by TheLink · · Score: 2 · on Study Suggests the Number-Line Concept Is Not Intuitive

    A lot of neuroscientists reckon we can process about 4 separate things in our mind simultaneously

    I think it depends on the sort of processing you need to do with those things and how long you have to do it:
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/28
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/7
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/3
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/4
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/8
    Apparently you can train yourself to do it better, and some research claims that "dual n-back" (and n-back) training can also increase your "fluid intelligence".
    FWIW I've got much better at the single "n-back" where n=2, after just a few tries over a day or two. I haven't even bothered trying n=4 for that - won't be able to do it without significant practice! Whereas n=5 or more for the simpler tests are trivial.

    I find another thing curious - either my reflexes have improved by 20-30ms or the first PC I tried it out on has 20-30ms more lag (screen+mouse+etc). I suspect the latter - could I really have improved my reflexes over a day or two?

  8. Re:Counting? by TheLink · · Score: 2 · on Study Suggests the Number-Line Concept Is Not Intuitive

    A lot of neuroscientists reckon we can process about 4 separate things in our mind simultaneously

    I think it depends on the sort of processing you need to do with those things and how long you have to do it:
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/28
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/7
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/3
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/4
    http://cognitivefun.net/test/8
    Apparently you can train yourself to do it better, and some research claims that "dual n-back" (and n-back) training can also increase your "fluid intelligence".
    FWIW I've got much better at the single "n-back" where n=2, after just a few tries over a day or two. I haven't even bothered trying n=4 for that - won't be able to do it without significant practice! Whereas n=5 or more for the simpler tests are trivial.

    I find another thing curious - either my reflexes have improved by 20-30ms or the first PC I tried it out on has 20-30ms more lag (screen+mouse+etc). I suspect the latter - could I really have improved my reflexes over a day or two?

  9. Re:Try dual n-back instead... by SemperUbi · · Score: 1 · on Bejeweled Yields Cognitive Benefit In Older Adults

    Let's not forget cognitivefun.net. Great free site, lots of game-like brain exercises, and sporting a clean no-nonsense design Slashdotters will love.

    And we don't have to rely on reports of folks just feeling better. N-back practice has been shown to correlate with working memory gains and likely with fluid intelligence as well. Single was as good as dual in one study.

  10. Re:Facebook is a good tool by SemperUbi · · Score: 1 · on More Users Are Shunning Facebook

    "if only someone would apply this type of random reward & leveling system to education, we could work wonders"

    Khan Academy does a pretty good job with this. And while cognitive fun is more about cognitive improvement than education, it's pretty addictive.

  11. 3D dual n-back by hitchhacker · · Score: 1 · on Brain Decline Begins At Age 27

    n back is boring. And not adaptive enough. Someone make a fun version that is more adaptive.

    I just found 3D dual n-back Speed Run. Makes it a bit more interesting.

    -metric