The biggest takeaway is that my scores would probably be higher if I had been using Lumosity daily. For example, with the Penguin game which still drives me nuts I could originally only make it through levels, now I can make it through 13…and the pinball game I could originally only do levels and today I reached Mainly the games that have to do with memory frustrate me — I enjoy the attention, speed, etc.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. I also use iPhone with a free account. The results are distributed [;]. I use the free access, and I got overall, which- I feel- is impossible as I haven't heard of any that high. Do any full access users have any data on the max BPI scores? Wow Moses. Can you please upload image or url to screenshot of your stats?
That's great! Not impossible, since the admins of Lumosity have modified the algorithm which determines one's BPI to account for each game within a given category of cognitive skill; in addition, my own BPI is overall, and I can only play the games afforded by free access. Oh, I didn't come back to this page for a while, I just realized I never uploaded the image.
Have comments or an experience with Lumosity that you would like to share? Use the comments area below:. Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. Of course, if the tests are of a particular type, this might lead to different outcomes. I could not find any validity data on the website whereby BPI scores are correlated with other measures. In general, practice effects on cognitive tests are seen as a source of error variance.
What a test measures after people have taken the test many times may be very different. In particular, the degree to which the test correlates with a domain general quality of interest may be reduced. Instead, the test may start to reflect a domain specific adaptation. Also, if people differ in the amount of practice, this would compound the measure of a domain general ability. Overall thoughts : In general, the target market for Lumosity's product seems to be consumers.
In the consumer market, it is typical for companies to use "proprietary algorithms" and for there not to be a test manual with extensive validity data. While this might make commercial sense, it limits the scientific value of such instruments. Because it has been a few years since Jeromy's original answer, and because I just read a very apt article, I will venture an update on the state of the field with respect to the BPI's validity.
Overall, despite more research into brain training and Lumosity, there is little to no peer-reviewed evidence supporting the Lumosity BPI's validity, nor evidence that an average consumer should expect practical cognitive improvements from Lumosity games. A very recent test of the BPI's validity was published by Shute, Ventura and Fe , who compared participants practicing Portal 2 with participants practicing Lumosity games; the Lumosity players served as active controls.
Portal 2 measures included 1 total number of levels completed, 2 average number of portals shot, and 3 average time to complete levels; Lumosity was measured by BPI. They reported no evidence of transfer effects for measures of either problem solving or spatial abilities in the Lumosity condition, and partial support for transfer in the Portal 2 condition only on spatial abilities. Hypotheses 2 and 3 test pretest to posttest gains on specific problem solving and spatial test scores within each condition.
We computed paired t-tests for each measure in each condition. For hypothesis 2 problem solving gains , we found no significant gains for the Portal 2 condition, from pretest to posttest, for any specific problem solving measure. We also did not find any significant pretest-to-posttest gains for the Lumosity condition across any of the problem solving measures.
Results provide partial support for hypothesis 3 spatial gains. There was no significant improvement for Portal 2 players on the SOT test. For participants in the Lumosity condition, there were no significant pretest-to-posttest improvements on any of the three spatial tests.
A rigorous study by Redick et al. They reported three relevant findings from their own validation study of dual n -back working memory training:.
0コメント