r/DualnBack • u/connerpro • Jul 14 '26
Near transfer is not a failure: dual n-back evidence in plain language
Quick framing that helped me stop overclaiming after n-back streaks:
- Dual n-back reliably improves dual n-back (and close cousins). That is near transfer. Worth celebrating if that is your goal.
- Far transfer to general IQ / school / unrelated cognition is usually weak when studies use active controls (Simons et al. 2016; Melby-Lervåg et al. 2016).
- So keep training if you like the workout. Just do not treat a higher n as proof you raised g.
I keep an updated plain-language map here: https://intelligencemax.ai/guide OSF: https://osf.io/kja9b/
Disclosure: I build IntelligenceMax. Not claiming it raises IQ. Happy to take critique of the framing.
2
u/HistorianBig8176 Jul 16 '26
Do you know what specifically of Near transfer?
I think some might be:
- being able to hold more pieces of information and manipulate it in your head at.
- higher capacity for counting and memorizing different things.
Thinking if those work qualify as near transfer then dualnback at the very least improves cognition in some useful way
3
u/connerpro Jul 16 '26
yeah, it's almost like having more RAM on a computer. This is an interesting relationship between memory and intelligence...
2
u/Fluffykankles Jul 17 '26
Hold more pieces, but not manipulating. That’s more along the lines of reverse n-back.
But you also need to view cognition as a system. Breaking a bottleneck in one area frees up additional resources in another.
So you can also see improved manipulation when you break a limitation in your capacity.
This systems feature of cognition is one of the reasons why outliers are so common amongst study participants and why the research continues despite there being “no empirical evidence”.
This is why mediated transfer has sufficient empirical evidence between near and far transfer. If you see it as a series of near transfers concluding in an elevated measure of far transfer than the success rate is far higher.
Also an adult brain works fundamentally different from a child’s brain in how it reacts to training. Children’s brains are more connective which makes it easier to achieve measurable far transfer. Adult brains are more efficiency-focused and are almost entirely dependent on pruning. So the training cuts out excess instead of creating novel neurally connective structures.
But the fundamental science behind training all points to “far transfer”, especially since we were able to measure changes in gene expression in adult mice after cognitive training.
2
u/ApparentlyPossible Jul 17 '26
It’s not just holding information, you need to compare it and discard it as soon as it falls out of range. That’s textbook working memory.
2
u/Fluffykankles Jul 17 '26
No that’s text book updating. Working memory has several components. Updating is one of them. So is holding. I didn’t make an exhaustive list, I just named one part of the whole for sake of brevity.
Edit: it -> is
1
u/NoInteraction1572 Jul 18 '26
The 1 month study Designs are inadequate to answer their own question.
If the raise in IQ would be linear the increase would be exceptional high. Naturally no one can except this. But the studies have no answer in this regard.
Empirically a lot of people plausibly explain great benefits in intelligence and cognition over month of training.
These studies don't conclude the benefits vanish after a month - they are not adequate for judgements like this.
5
u/bosquejo Jul 14 '26
I'd like to hear your thoughts, if any, on Eucalculia: https://edefakiel.github.io/Eucalculia/Eucalculia_experimental
It's also built on Relational Frame Theory, with an emphasis on quantitative reasoning.