Strategies

Definitive review of the Mozart effect

July, 2010

Finally a definitive review making clear the limits of the Mozart effect (namely that it's a very small effect when it occurs, and it only occurs in very specific circumstances).

Some years ago I wrote an article discussing the fact that the so-called Mozart effect has proved very hard to replicate since its ‘discovery’ in 1993, but now we have what is regarded as a definitive review, analyzing the entirety of the scientific record on the topic (including a number of unpublished academic theses), and the finding is very clear: there is little support for the view that listening to Mozart improves cognitive (specifically spatial) abilities. First of all, in those studies showing an effect, it was very small. The size of the effect of the specific Mozart sonata used in the original study (Sonata KV 448) compared to no stimulus was similar in size to the effect of any music compared to no stimulus. There was a small significant effect for the Mozart sonata when directly compared to other music, which probably reflects the fact that the types of music used in different studies varied widely. Some types of music are doubtless less arousing than others.
There was also a large difference in the results from laboratories affiliated to Rauscher (the original researcher) or Rideout compared to other laboratories. Rauscher and Shaw 1998 did in fact emphasize that the effect required exact replication of their original study design.
I have to say that if this (small and very specific) effect depends so heavily on getting the procedural details exactly right, it’s of little practical use. I think the main lesson we can learn from all this is that your emotional state affects cognition (a well-established effect), and that you may find some types of music are best for ‘getting you in the mood’ for mental work.

Reference: 

[1587] Pietschnig, J., Voracek M., & Formann A. K.
(Submitted).  Mozart effect-Shmozart effect: A meta-analysis.
Intelligence. 38(3), 314 - 323.

Source: 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510075415.htm

Topics: 

tags: 

tags strategies: 

Visual perception heightened by meditation training

July, 2010

Another study confirms the effects of meditation training on visual perception.

Another study showing the cognitive benefits of meditation has revealed benefits to perception and attention. The study involved 30 participants attending a three-month meditation retreat, during which they attended group sessions twice a day and engaging in individual practice for about six hours a day. The meditation practice involved sustained selective attention on a chosen stimulus (e.g., the participant’s breath). By midway through the retreat, meditators had become better at making fine visual distinctions, and better able to sustain attention during the half-hour test, compared to matched controls. Those who continued practicing meditation after the retreat still showed improvements in perception when they were retested about five months later.

Reference: 

[1582] MacLean, K. A., Ferrer E., Aichele S. R., Bridwell D. A., Zanesco A. P., Jacobs T. L., et al.
(2010).  Intensive Meditation Training Improves Perceptual Discrimination and Sustained Attention.
Psychological Science. 21(6), 829 - 839.

Source: 

www.physorg.com/news192904536.html

Topics: 

tags memworks: 

tags strategies: 

A bare light bulb stimulates insight

March, 2010

Love this one! A series of experiments with college students has revealed that a glowing, bare light bulb can improve your changes of solving an insight problem.

Love this one! A series of experiments with college students has revealed that a glowing, bare light bulb can improve your changes of solving an insight problem. In one experiment, 79 students were given a spatial problem to solve. Before they started, the experimenter, remarking “It’s a little dark in here”, either turned on a lamp with an unshaded 25-watt bulb or an overhead fluorescent light. Twice as many of those exposed to the bare bulb solved the problem in the allotted three minutes (44% vs 22%). In another experiment, 69 students were given four math problems, one of which required insight to solve. Again, those exposed to the lit bulb solved the insight problem more often — but there was no difference on the other problems. A third experiment extended the finding to word problems, and in the fourth, a comparison of the unshaded 25-watt bulb with a shaded 40-watt bulb revealed that the bare, less powerful, bulb was more effective. Isn’t it wonderful that the physical representation of the icon for a bright idea should help us have bright ideas?

Reference: 

[305] Slepian, M. L., Weisbuch M., Rutchick A. M., Newman L. S., & Ambady N.
(2010).  Shedding light on insight: Priming bright ideas.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 46(4), 696 - 700.

Source: 

http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/bright-ideas-light-bulbs-st...

Topics: 

tags: 

tags strategies: 

Working memory training makes mice smarter

March, 2010

A mouse study has found working memory training improved their proficiency on a wide range of cognitive tests, and helped them better retained their cognitive abilities into old age.

A study in which 60 young adult mice were trained on a series of maze exercises designed to challenge and improve their working memory ability (in terms of retaining and using current spatial information), has found that the mice improved their proficiency on a wide range of cognitive tests, and moreover better retained their cognitive abilities into old age.

Reference: 

[288] Light, K. R., Kolata S., Wass C., Denman-Brice A., Zagalsky R., & Matzel L. D.
(2010).  Working Memory Training Promotes General Cognitive Abilities in Genetically Heterogeneous Mice.
Current Biology.

Source: 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/ru-oma032510.php

Topics: 

tags memworks: 

tags strategies: 

How mindset can improve vision

April, 2010

An intriguing set of experiments has showed how you can improve vision by manipulating mindset.

An intriguing set of experiments showing how you can improve perception by manipulating mindset found significantly improved vision when:

  • an eye chart was arranged in reverse order (the letters getting progressively larger rather than smaller);
  • participants were given eye exercises and told their eyes would improve with practice;
  • participants were told athletes have better vision, and then told to perform jumping jacks or skipping (seen as less athletic);
  • participants flew a flight simulator, compared to pretending to fly a supposedly broken simulator (pilots are believed to have good vision).

Reference: 

[158] Langer, E., Djikic M., Pirson M., Madenci A., & Donohue R.
(2010).  Believing Is Seeing.
Psychological Science. 21(5), 661 - 666.

Source: 

www.physorg.com/news192043428.html

Topics: 

tags: 

tags memworks: 

tags problems: 

Brief meditative exercise helps cognition

April, 2010

Great news for those who crave the benefits of meditation but find the thought a bit intimidating! Adding to evidence that long-term mindfulness meditation practice promotes executive functioning and the ability to sustain attention, a small study has found cognitive benefits from as little as four sessions of 20 minutes.

Great news for those who crave the benefits of meditation but find the thought a bit intimidating! While a number of studies have demonstrated that long-term mindfulness meditation practice promotes executive functioning and the ability to sustain attention, now a small study involving 49 students has found that as little as four sessions of 20 minutes produced a significant improvement in critical cognitive skills, compared to those who spent an equal amount of time listening to Tolkien's The Hobbit being read aloud. Both groups showed similar improved levels of mood, but only the meditation group improved their cognitive scores. While this group improved on all cognitive tasks, they did dramatically better when under stressful conditions, such as provided by increasingly challenging time-constraints, and particularly in the areas of attention and vigilance. Mindfulness training, as given here, focuses on breathing, letting go one’s thoughts, releasing sensory events that distract. It should be noted that no one is suggesting four days training produces a permanent effect! But it is encouraging to think that benefits might be achieved so quickly. The training also reduced fatigue and anxiety.

Reference: 

[153] Zeidan, F., Johnson S. K., Diamond B. J., David Z., & Goolkasian P.
(2010).  Mindfulness meditation improves cognition: Evidence of brief mental training.
Consciousness and Cognition. 19(2), 597 - 605.

Source: 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414184220.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-04/uonc-esb041410.php

Topics: 

tags strategies: 

Study claims brain games don't make you smarter

April, 2010

The recent report splashed all over the press that supposedly found playing online brain games makes you no smarter than surfing the Internet demonstrated no more than we already know: that transfer beyond the specific tasks you practise is very rare, and that well-educated people who are not deprived of mental stimulation and have no health or disability problems are not the people likely to be helped by such games.

A six-week study got a lot of press last month. The study involved some 11,000 viewers of the BBC's science show "Bang Goes the Theory", and supposedly showed that playing online brain games makes you no smarter than surfing the Internet to answer general knowledge questions. In fact, the main problem was the media coverage. The researchers acknowledged that previous research has found some types of individuals benefit from such games (older adults, preschool children, and I would add, children with some learning disabilities such as ADHD), and that video gamers show improved skills in some areas. What they found was that, across this general, mostly well-educated group, the amount of training on these tasks didn't improve performance beyond those specific tasks. This is neither a surprise, nor news. I'll talk more about this in the newsletter coming out early next month.

Reference: 

[451] Owen, A. M., Hampshire A., Grahn J. A., Stenton R., Dajani S., Burns A. S., et al.
(2010).  Putting brain training to the test.
Nature.

Source: 

www.physorg.com/news190997173.html
http://news.discovery.com/human/brain-games-intelligence.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/20/brain-training-games-iq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/besttreatments/2010/apr/21/brain-...

Topics: 

tags strategies: 

Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies?

Journal Article: 

Basden, B.H., Basden, D.R., Bryner, S. & Thomas, R.L. III (1997). A comparison of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 1176-1189.

  • "Brainstorming" actually produces fewer ideas than would be produced by the same individuals working individually.
  • This is probably because hearing other people's ideas disrupts your own retrieval strategy.
  • This is less likely to occur in a structured situation, where turns are taken.

Despite the popularity of brainstorming as a strategy for producing ideas and new perspectives, it appears that participation in a group actually reduces the number of ideas produced (compared to the number of ideas that would be produced if the participants thought independently)1.

Three possible explanations have been investigated:

  • evaluation apprehension (being worried how other people will evaluate your ideas)
  • social loafing (a self-explanatory and rather cute description)
  • production blocking (the group interaction interferes with your ability to express your ideas, e.g., through interruptions)

It was concluded that this last explanation (production blocking) was the most plausible reason for the reduction in idea production. It was suggested that a person's retrieval strategy is disrupted by hearing another person's ideas.

In the present study, four experiments studied recall of lists of categorized words. Such recall clearly depends on organized retrieval, and all experiments showed that such recall is ordinarily disrupted in collaborative groups. A turn-taking procedure was used within the groups, rather than the free-for-all procedure used in a similar study.

Basden et al suggest that when you're asked to think of ideas, you formulate a particular retrieval strategy. However, as soon as someone else makes a suggestion, there is a tendency to abandon your own retrieval strategy in favor of one more consistent with the other person's. In a group this is particularly difficult since everyone's strategy is likely to be different.

It is worth noting that various variables affect the effectiveness of group remembering, depending on whether the group is structured as a free-for-all, or the group members take turns in speaking. If turns are taken, waiting time is an important variable. In a free-for-all, the specificity of the suggestions may be important, this being affected by how well the group members know each other. Another study that used a free-for-all procedure found that recall was better if the collaborating pair were friends2. They argued that a friend is more likely to provide retrieval cues that are specific to the target information. However, if turns are being taken, such social factors may be less important.

References

1. Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 487-509.

Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. 1991. Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392-403.

2. Andersson, J. & Rönnberg, J. 1996. Collaboration and memory: Effects of dyadic retrieval on different memory tasks. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 171-181.

Topics: 

tags strategies: 

Effect of keywords on long-term retention

Journal Article: 

Wang, A.Y. & Thomas, M.H. (1995). Effect of keywords on long-term retention: help or hindrance? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 468-475.

Effective use of the keyword strategy requires repeated reviews of the material

Distinctiveness is not as good a cue as more meaningful information

To be effective, imagery-based mnemonics need to use relational images that bring together the to-be-remembered information and all the necessary cues

A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the keyword mnemonic for short-term recall, for example:

  • McDaniel et al (1987) compared the keyword mnemonic with a strategy whereby new vocabulary were studied in a meaningful context. They found immediate recall was significantly better using the keyword strategy, but after a week, recall was comparable using either strategy.
  • Wang et al (1992) compared the keyword strategy with rote rehearsal for learning foreign vocabulary. They found immediate recall was higher using the keyword strategy, but much worse after one week. But note that recall of the keywords themselves was very good - the problem came with recalling the word the keyword was supposed to remind you of.

In the present study, as with the McDaniel study, the keyword mnemonic was compared with the semantic-context strategy, and obscure English words were used. As usual, immediate recall was better for the keyword method, but after two days, recall using the keyword strategy was significantly worse (although, as before, the keyword itself was recalled very well). The same pattern of results was found using foreign vocabulary.

In the next experiment, subjects were given the opportunity to review, either three times or five times. Compared to a control condition (no review), review improved both immediate recall and recall after two days, with the number of reviews making a significant difference (for both strategies). The important finding however, was that the more rapid forgetting of the keyword mnemonic was considerably reduced with repeated reviews (bringing it to the level of recall seen using the semantic-context strategy after five reviews).

The authors' conclusions are interesting. They point out that distinctiveness cues are apparently less durable (less well-remembered over time) than cues that are relational and semantic, and that these results are thus consistent with the view that imagery-based mnemonics produce distinctiveness cues. That is, such strategies make the to-be-remembered items more vivid and concrete.

They suggest that with only a little practice, only the distinctive keyword images are formed. Extended practice is needed to generate images that effectively integrate relational qualities.

Images are only valuable to the extent that they connect otherwise unrelated information (see The myth of imagery).

References

  • McDaniel, M.A., Pressley, M. & Dunay, P.K. 1987. Long-term retention of vocabulary after keyword and context learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 87-89.
  • Wang, A.Y., Thomas, M.H. & Ouellette, J.A. 1992. Keyword mnemonic and retention of second-language vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 520-528.

 

Topics: 

tags strategies: 

Collective and individual processes in remembering

Journal Article: 

Weldon, M.S. & Bellinger, K.D. (1997). Collective and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 1160-1175.

  • "Brainstorming" actually produces fewer ideas than would be produced by the same individuals working individually
  • Groups working together to remember something recall more poorly than the same individuals would working on their own
  • The inhibitory effect of working in a group is worse when the information being recalled is more complex

When a group of people work together to remember an event, the group do appear to recall more than an individual working alone, but do they recall more than the sum of the memories each individual recalls?

Studies have found that "brainstorming" groups actually produce fewer ideas than groups that are groups in name only1. And in many tasks, from rope-pulling to vigilance tasks, it has been found that people contribute less when they are part of a group than when they are working alone2.

In this study, two experiments compared the memory performance of nominal and collaborative groups of three, using

  • random lists of pictures and words;
  • a story (The "War of Ghosts", a supposed folk-tale, long used in psychology labs to demonstrate the errors in people's memories)

It was found that the nominal groups (where individual results were pooled) remembered the best. Collaboration appears to inhibit recall. Such collaborative inhibition was greater with the story than with the list.

References

1. Bouchard, T. J. Jr. & Hare, M. 1970. Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 51-55.

Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 487-509.
Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J. & Jaastad, K. 1963. The effects of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for two industrial samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 30-37.

2. Karau, S.J. & Williams, K.D. 1993. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706.

Topics: 

tags strategies: 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Strategies