N-back Test Download

The n-back task is a continuous performance task that is commonly used as an assessment in psychology and cognitive neuroscience to measure a part of working memory and working memory capacity.[1] The n-back was introduced by Wayne Kirchner in 1958.[2] N-Back games are purported to be a training method to improve working memory and working memory capacity and also increase fluid intelligence, although evidence for such effects are lacking. [3]

To clarify, the visual n-back test is similar to the classic memory game of Concentration. However, instead of different items that are in a fixed location on the game board, there is only one item, that appears in different positions on the game board during each turn. "1-N" means that you have to remember the position of the item, one turn back. "2-N" means that you have to remember the position of the item two turns back, and so on.

Download 🔥 https://shurll.com/2y3B5y 🔥

The dual-task n-back task is a variation that was proposed by Susanne Jaeggi et al. in 2003.[4] In the dual-task paradigm, two independent sequences are presented simultaneously, typically using different modalities of stimuli, such as one auditory and one visual.

A 2008 research paper claimed that practicing a dual n-back task can increase fluid intelligence (Gf), as measured in several different standard tests.[8] This finding received some attention from popular media, including an article in Wired.[9] However, a subsequent criticism of the paper's methodology questioned the experiment's validity and took issue with the lack of uniformity in the tests used to evaluate the control and test groups.[10] For example, the progressive nature of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) test may have been compromised by modifications of time restrictions (i.e., 10 minutes were allowed to complete a normally 45-minute test). The authors of the original paper later addressed this criticism by citing research indicating that scores in timed administrations of the APM are predictive of scores in untimed administrations.[11]

The 2008 study was replicated in 2010 with results indicating that practicing single n-back may be almost equal to dual n-back in increasing the score on tests measuring Gf (fluid intelligence). The single n-back test used was the visual test, leaving out the audio test.[11] In 2011, the same authors showed long-lasting transfer effect in some conditions.[12]

A more recent and extended meta-analysis in January 2017[17] also found that n-back training produces a medium improvement in unrelated n-back training tasks, but a small improvement in unrelated working memory (WM) tasks:

The present meta-analysis on the efficacy of n-back training shows medium transfer effects to untrained versions of the trained n-back tasks and small transfer effects to other WM tasks, cognitive control, and Gf [fluid intelligence]. Our results suggest that previous meta-analyses investigating the effects of WM training have overestimated the transfer effects to WM by including untrained variants of the training tasks in their WM transfer domain. Consequently, transfer of n-back training is more task-specific than has previously been suggested.

The n-back is now in use outside experimental, clinical, and medical settings. Tutoring companies utilize versions of the task (in conjunction with other cognitive tasks) to allegedly improve the fluid intelligence of their clients.[20] Tutoring companies and psychologists also utilize the task to improve the focus of individuals with ADHD[20] and to rehabilitate sufferers of traumatic brain injury;[21] experiments have found evidence that practice with the task helps these individuals focus for up to eight months following training.[21] However, much debate remains about whether training on the n-back and similar tasks can improve performance in the long run or whether the effects of training are transient,[20][21] and if the effects of training n-back generalize to general cognitive processing, for instance, to fluid intelligence.[22] Despite the claims of commercial providers, there are some researchers who question whether the results of memory training are transferable. Researchers from the University of Oslo published results of the meta-analytical review analyzing various studies on memory training techniques (including n-back) and concluded that "training programs give only near-transfer effects, and there is no convincing evidence that even such near-transfer effects are durable."[23]

The N-back task requires participants to decide whether each stimulus in a sequence matches the one that appeared n items ago. Although N-back has become a standard "executive" working memory (WM) measure in cognitive neuroscience, it has been subjected to few behavioral tests of construct validity. A combined experimental- correlational study tested the attention-control demands of verbal 2- and 3-back tasks by presenting n = 1 "lure" foils. Lures elicited more false alarms than control foils in both 2- and 3-back tasks, and lures caused more misses to targets that immediately followed them compared with control targets, but only in 3-back tasks. N-back thus challenges control over familiarity-based responding. Participants also completed a verbal WM span task (operation span task) and a marker test of general fluid intelligence (Gf; Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices Test; J. C. Raven, J. E. Raven, & J. H. Court, 1998). N-back and WM span correlated weakly, suggesting they do not reflect primarily a single construct; moreover, both accounted for independent variance in Gf. N-back has face validity as a WM task, but it does not demonstrate convergent validity with at least 1 established WM measure.

Computerized neuropsychological tests offered several advantages for large epidemiological studies to assess child neuropsychological development. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties and criterion validity of 2 computerized tests (n-back and attentional network task [ANT]) used to assess the working memory and attention function, respectively. As part of the BREATHE (BRain dEvelopment and Air polluTion ultrafine particles in scHool childrEn) project, we evaluated the neuropsychological development of 2,904 children between 7 to 9 years of age. The main outcomes of the n-back test were d' scores and hit reaction time (RT) (HRT). The outcomes measured for ANT were incorrect responses, omissions, alerting, orienting, and conflict. We also collected data of child's sex, age, school achievement, ADHD symptomatology, behavioral problems, and maternal education. We observed that the d' scores and HRT showed acceptable internal consistency, reasonable factorial structure, as well as good criterion validity and statistical dependencies. Regarding the ANT, incorrect responses, omissions, and conflict score had acceptable criterion validity although the internal consistency of the ANT was low. We strongly recommend the use of these tests in environmental epidemiological studies as valid, objective, and easy-to-apply measures of child neuropsychological development.

I am using the tutorial to try to code a 2-back test with random letters. I have only found an already opened topic here but there the issue could also not been solved.

I have tried to work through the tutorial and used the code as they used it.

As with all things involving programming, there are many ways in which we can achieve the same goal. In this tutorial we will cover how to make an n-back task and we will talk through how we could achieve this in a few different ways.

To make our stimuli completely random in our n-back we need to know a bit of code. But we can still do this from the builder view, we just need to add a code component. The first thing we need is a list of numbers to select from, in python we could to that using string with string.ascii_uppercase.

An additional study aim was to compare n-back performance and performance on standard measures of working memory and processing speed in control and PD groups to examine the n-back's ability to detect between-groups differences. We found that the two groups did not significantly differ with respect to digit span forward or backward, TMT A, Stroop word reading, or Stroop color naming. In contrast, the PD group showed significantly poorer accuracy on the n-back as well as a trend toward slower RTs, suggesting the n-back may be able to detect subtle group differences in performance.

One potential explanation for the surprising lack of relationship between n-back accuracy and digit span backward may be that the n-back is a visually presented, as opposed to aurally presented, working memory task. This may prime participants to use a mental imagery strategy rather than a verbally mediated strategy. One way to examine this hypothesis would be to include a measure of visual working memory, such as a spatial span task or self-ordered pointing task (Petrides & Milner, 1982) to see if significant correlations emerge between the n-back and these tasks.

The present results are somewhat consistent with n-back findings from Parmenter, Shucard, Benedict, and Shucard (2006). These authors conducted a principal components analysis of performance on the n-back, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT), and other measures of executive function in a combined sample of patients with multiple sclerosis and healthy controls. They found that n-back accuracy and RTs, PASAT accuracy, and TMT A and B all loaded on a common factor, which they conceptualized as speeded information processing. Digit span forward and backward loaded together on a nonspeeded working memory factor. This is similar to our finding that n-back performance showed a stronger relationship with a test of speeded information processing (TMT A) than with a nonspeeded test of working memory (digit span backward).

The present study has several limitations, including a small sample size (thus it may be underpowered), a predominantly male sample, and a highly educated PD group consisting of candidates for DBS surgery, which may not represent the typical PD patient. The PD group was also tested while on dopaminergic medication, which may have improved task performance given prior findings that dopamine modulates working memory (Costa et al., 2003). 2351a5e196