Millisecond Forums

Adaptive N-back: Scoring formula seems taken from normal n-back and therefore unreliable?

https://forums.millisecond.com/Topic21678.aspx

By aquinox - 5/24/2017

Hi,

I have used the N-back for a while, assuming that scoring correction is taking place for getting in higher levels of N, because obviously they are harder. If someone enters a higher level of N but scores not so good on that N level, he could end up scoring lower than someone scoring quite well in a lower N level.

Lets say there are
30 target trials in total, with each time 0 FAs, someone scores
Person A : N=2: 9/10 hitsN=3: 8/10 + 7/10= 15/20 hits (less than 90% correct, so no N=4)Final score will be 24
 Person B:
N=2: 9/10 hitsN=3: 9/10 hits (pass to N=4)N=4: 4/10 hitsHis final score is 22. While person B reached N=4, his final score will still be worse.

Or am i missing something?

Thanks!
By Dave - 5/24/2017

aquinox - Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Hi,

I have used the N-back for a while, assuming that scoring correction is taking place for getting in higher levels of N, because obviously they are harder. If someone enters a higher level of N but scores not so good on that N level, he could end up scoring lower than someone scoring quite well in a lower N level.

Lets say there are
30 target trials in total, with each time 0 FAs, someone scores
Person A : N=2: 9/10 hits N=3: 8/10 + 7/10= 15/20 hits (less than 90% correct, so no N=4) Final score will be 24
 Person B:
N=2: 9/10 hitsN=3: 9/10 hits (pass to N=4)N=4: 4/10 hitsHis final score is 22. While person B reached N=4, his final score will still be worse.

Or am i missing something?

Thanks!

I'm confused: Are you referring to the adaptive n-back or the normal (non-adaptive n-back)? I don't quite get how you came up with the numbers in the example and how they relate to the adaptive n-back. I'm also not sure what exactly you are referring to as "final score." If you could clarify, that would be great.
By aquinox - 5/24/2017

Dave - Wednesday, May 24, 2017
aquinox - Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Hi,

I have used the N-back for a while, assuming that scoring correction is taking place for getting in higher levels of N, because obviously they are harder. If someone enters a higher level of N but scores not so good on that N level, he could end up scoring lower than someone scoring quite well in a lower N level.

Lets say there are
30 target trials in total, with each time 0 FAs, someone scores
Person A : N=2: 9/10 hits N=3: 8/10 + 7/10= 15/20 hits (less than 90% correct, so no N=4) Final score will be 24
 Person B:
N=2: 9/10 hitsN=3: 9/10 hits (pass to N=4)N=4: 4/10 hitsHis final score is 22. While person B reached N=4, his final score will still be worse.

Or am i missing something?

Thanks!

I'm confused: Are you referring to the adaptive n-back or the normal (non-adaptive n-back)? I don't quite get how you came up with the numbers in the example and how they relate to the adaptive n-back. I'm also not sure what exactly you are referring to as "final score." If you could clarify, that would be great.

I'm referring to the adaptive N-back.

They are just some round numbers to illustrate the problem I think exists in how the adaptive n-back has been set up.

So what I mean with final score is the way the test results are scored. Participant B reached N=4 but didn't score so well in this N level, and will get a lower final score than Participant A because he  scored higher in lower N levels and there's no differentiation between N levels. (it appears as if the scoring system has been taken over from the normal Nback)

By Dave - 5/24/2017

aquinox - Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Dave - Wednesday, May 24, 2017
aquinox - Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Hi,

I have used the N-back for a while, assuming that scoring correction is taking place for getting in higher levels of N, because obviously they are harder. If someone enters a higher level of N but scores not so good on that N level, he could end up scoring lower than someone scoring quite well in a lower N level.

Lets say there are
30 target trials in total, with each time 0 FAs, someone scores
Person A : N=2: 9/10 hits N=3: 8/10 + 7/10= 15/20 hits (less than 90% correct, so no N=4) Final score will be 24
 Person B:
N=2: 9/10 hitsN=3: 9/10 hits (pass to N=4)N=4: 4/10 hitsHis final score is 22. While person B reached N=4, his final score will still be worse.

Or am i missing something?

Thanks!

I'm confused: Are you referring to the adaptive n-back or the normal (non-adaptive n-back)? I don't quite get how you came up with the numbers in the example and how they relate to the adaptive n-back. I'm also not sure what exactly you are referring to as "final score." If you could clarify, that would be great.

I'm referring to the adaptive N-back.

They are just some round numbers to illustrate the problem I think exists in how the adaptive n-back has been set up.

So what I mean with final score is the way the test results are scored. Participant B reached N=4 but didn't score so well in this N level, and will get a lower final score than Participant A because he  scored higher in lower N levels and there's no differentiation between N levels. (it appears as if the scoring system has been taken over from the normal Nback)


Okay, thanks. Cases where a participant who reaches a higher n-level ends up with a slightly worse score due to bad performance at that level than a subject with not-great but more consistent performance at a lower n-level are theoretically possible.To the best of my knowledge, the scoring in the Inquisit script is the way also Jaeggi et al score the adaptive n-Back.