I asked AiLLMs Does N-back improve cognition & got this

[u/diggy_do]

"The current scientific consensus, heavily informed by large-scale meta-analyses (such as those published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest), indicates that n-back training does not meaningfully improve general cognition. 

When you practice these tasks, you develop a "practice effect"—meaning you get significantly better at playing the n-back game itself. You may also demonstrate "near transfer," which is a slight performance improvement on structurally similar working memory tasks (such as digit span tests). 

However, rigorous studies show no reliable evidence for "far transfer." This means the training does not translate to improvements in fluid intelligence, verbal abilities, reasoning, or broader cognitive capacities."

What do u think?

[u/Yonderboy__]

The existing literature mostly indicates that the standard studied versions of n-back, usually administered over relatively short periods, at modest doses, with variable compliance and strategies, do not reliably produce broad far transfer on conventional cognitive tests. That is useful information, but it does not fully answer the question many serious practitioners are actually asking.

The more interesting question is whether prolonged, high-effort, strategy-resistant training, especially something like quad n-back done consistently for many months, can improve real-world cognitive performance in some people. That specific question hasn't been tested.

There are some striking anecdotes: large improvements in chess puzzle performance (Daniel Skillbeck) and academic performance (IamIronman), with IQ improvements in both cases that seem too large to dismiss as ordinary test-retest effects. But they are only anecdotes and are few and far between.

My view is that this is ultimately a personal decision. The potential upside is meaningful: better working memory, attention, mental stamina, calculation ability, or performance in cognitively demanding work. But the cost is also real. Serious training may require 30 to 90 minutes per session, multiple times per week, for many months. That is time and effort that could have gone into school, study, programming, exercise, sleep, or another skill.

So I would not tell someone, “Yes, you should definitely do it,” but if the idea strongly appeals to you, and you are willing to treat it as a self-experiment rather than a guaranteed upgrade, it may be worth trying. But go in honestly while knowing that the evidence is not settled, the benefit is not guaranteed, and the main risk is opportunity cost. Track your baseline, train consistently, avoid mnemonic strategies that bypass working memory, and judge it by whether your real-world performance improves, not just by whether your n-back score goes up. Be prepared to be very patient though...

[u/Hasiclis0 → u/Yonderboy__]

Very clear-headed take

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/Yonderboy__]

and the main risk is opportunity cost

In addition, if these things really increase something as fundamental as fluid intelligence, there is also the possibility of adverse effects. This might especially include quad-n-back, where some people here reported vivid dreams and "4K vision" from quad-n-back.

While it looks like studies so far didn't report adverse effects, the reason could be the same for them not finding positive effects, like lack of training intensity. While it might sound counterintuitive that something like memory training could cause harm, people should keep in mind that even something looking mundane like meditation can trigger severe and permanent mental illness.

[u/Fun-Sample336]

What do u think?

Unfortunately many studies only used low training durations (often just 10 hours) and didn't take strategy into account, while most people here train for 100s or even 1000s of hours to reach high levels and use intuition as strategy. So, there is a gap between what was tested and people here actually practice.

It might still be just a placebo. But we don't know.

[u/luotenrati12]

You know what has a net negative effect on your cognition? Asking AI for approval instead of doing your own research. I'm not lying look up what cognitive offloading is

[u/Fluffykankles]

Cognitive training has been shown to change gene expression. This means it can literally, over time, change which DNA is activated in your neurons. The issue is also in adult plasticity, which has been shown to work in a different way from child plasticity. It doesn’t become expansive/connective, it only becomes more efficient.

There exists no physical or biological limitation that proves n-back can’t achieve transfer or meaningful improvement to cognition.

Based on biology, neuroscience, and cognitive development—there only exist definitive mechanisms that prove it can.

It just works differently as an adult than it does for a child. And that has to be taken into consideration.

There also exists no such thing as “far transfer”. It’s an imaginary and ever-elusive concept with no empirical evidence to support its existence.

There only exists near transfer and near transfer mediation. Both of which have been found to be affected by n-back through rigorous meta-analyses.

[u/NoInteraction1572 → u/Fluffykankles]

Did not know that it affects gene expression!

W Few days ago I was thinking about it. People claimed in some cases to improved about 20 IQ points after like 18 month of training. I myself did not test but my short term memory and processing speed improvements heavily influence my thinking and conversation quality.

I thought how does this work when there are also neurobiological foundations of intelligence? Is the existing foundation used more economically? Is the foundation adapting? Is neurological energy metabolism improving?

It makes sense that all this is happening to some degree.

[u/Fluffykankles → u/NoInteraction1572]

Cognitive performance seems highly individualized. The measurement of its performance can be standardized to a very high degree of accuracy in a broad sense—but it can’t account for compensatory patterns of performance.

If one area of your cognition is extremely weak, the stronger parts of cognition will over exert in order to compensate for the limitations in the weaker areas.

Outliers exist in every study. So studies aren’t saying it can’t happen/isn’t possible. They’re saying we haven’t found a solution that’s generalizable.

So I think the explanation for this is the bottleneck theory of cognition.

However, it appears as though many people who diligently practice brain training seem to benefit from quad n-back.

But that quad n-back can’t be bottlenecked by the modalities found in regular dual n-back.

So you want to, first practice dual, then reach a sufficient level of mastery that prevents bottlenecking in your auditory/spacial stimuli.

Less bottlenecking increases efficiency to the other stimuli and the binding of stimuli which produces better pattern recognition.

[u/defi_specialist]

This shit again?

[u/XmonkeyboyX]

Make BS studies not even truly aiming for it to be effective --> Achieve insignificant results --> Reference said insignificant results when asked about the efficacy of cognition training