Hey, What Happened to My Brain?

For a few months, I’ve been measuring how well my brain is working
using arithmetic problems. Each test session includes 100 simple
problems (3+4, 7-0, 4*8) divided into 5 blocks of 20. I type the last
digit of the answer as quickly as possible. I got the idea from Tim Lundeen, who got better on a similar task when he increased his DHA intake. My performance on an earlier version of this task was improved by flaxseed oil.

I’ve blogged about this. The virtues of this test include: 1. Fast. Takes only a few minutes. 2. Portable. Requires only a laptop. 3. Many possible answers (1, 2, 3, etc.). This reduces anticipation errors. 4. Many numbers (reaction times) per test. 
This allows me to get a measure of variability for each session and can
correct for the difficulty of the problem. Aspects with room for
improvement include: 1. Speed/accuracy tradeoff. Accuracy isn’t fixed.
Depending on how accurate I want to be, I’ll go faster or slower. (I
aim for 95% correct.) 2. No complex actions. The most enjoyable games
have a motor-skill aspect that this task does

Here’s the data so far.3336375181_952054f435_z.jpg

The big gap happened because I moved from Beijing to Berkeley. The most
fascinating result, of course, is the sudden drop on February 2. Here
is a close-up.
The drop was easy to notice. All of a sudden I was faster (and only
slightly less accurate). How sharp the change: On February 2 at 8 am I took the test; my
scores were roughly the same as they had been the past month. At 2 pm
the same day, I took the test again and was about 50 msec faster. (In
reaction-time experiments, a surprising 50-msec effect is huge.) I
remained faster for at least several weeks.

What might have caused this? The first test with better performance took
place while my landlady, who lives upstairs, was practicing piano.
Usually it’s quiet when I test myself. My first thought was that the
music had caused the improvement. But it persisted so long after the
music had stopped that the music couldn’t be the cause.

I moved to Beijing in October. Eventually I ran out of the Spectrum Organic flaxseed oil I’d brought with me and started drinking a Beijing brand called Joyful Organic.
When I returned to Berkeley I brought a few bottles of it with me and
continued to drink it. In late January I ran out; the evening of
January 29 I started drinking Spectrum Organic again. Four days later
my arithmetic scores sharply improved.

It’s really plausible that the improvement was due to the change in
flaxseed oils. Flaxseed oil had made a difference (versus nothing) with a very similar task.
A few weeks before the shift, a friend had asked how I knew if my
Chinese flaxseed oil was good; I’d said I’d find out when I switched
back to Spectrum Organic.

But why was the improvement delayed four days? I started studying
flaxseed oil because one evening I took several capsules and the next
morning noticed my balance was better. And if the improvement is going
to take that long, why would it happen so sharply after the delay? I
can’t even begin to answer these questions.

This entry was posted in Personal Projects and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Hey, What Happened to My Brain?

  1. Hadley Wickham says:

    An alternative hypothesis is that those low values are just what you’d expect if you hadn’t moved to Berkeley (based on extending the previous exponential trend by eye). The unusual pattern is the increase at the end of January – and you have a good explanation for this.
    That still fails to explain the suddenness of the drop, but how unusual is such a sudden change? We need more data (or at least your data). Visually, the change maybe amplified by the vertical bars you are drawing, and the irregularity of sampling over time.
    (And what are those bars?)

  2. Gary Wolf says:

    Thanks Seth for this great post. I know from reading your post on sethroberts.net that you use R, the open source statistics software, on a windows laptop, to do your measurements. I am on a mac, and despite your generous help I never got comfortable in R. (I keep my other data in an excel spreadsheet.)
    I think a popular, standard version of this test would be really useful. It is not much different from what they have done in Brainage but with set parameters.

  3. Seth Roberts says:

    The bars are standard errors.
    How unusual is such a change? I’ve never seen anything like it in behavioral data.
    Maybe it’s hard to see in the graphs here but my performance had stabilized in China. In other words, I had stopped improving.

  4. Hadley Wickham says:

    Standard errors based on what?

  5. Borislava says:

    No offence, but I do have to say that nobody tried to mention the medical/nutritional aspect.
    I don’t know much about nutrition, it’s not my speciality, but I assume you already know that the brain itself expends about 20% of all the oxygen we “eat”, and it’s very sensitive on changes of many factors, including blood density, vessel diameter, all Virhof factors that can easily give a new performance.
    If the statistics is right, of course :) .
    I’m really curious, so if I could find some scientific papers on this very subject, I’ll post it here for you to see.
    Sorry for possible mistakes in Enlgish, it’s not my language of origin.
    Kindest regards :) .

  6. gwern says:

    All the image links seem to be broken now?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.