Messages 29 – 20 of 29
 Magnus Andersson (Sweden) | 2008-10-03 14:25:59 (CET) |
| I have now changed the program so that the digits (or squares) are spread out on an area of a fixed, and as small as possible, width and height, since this makes it easier to see. | |
| Magnus Andersson (Sweden) | 2008-05-30 23:06:12 (CET) |
| Interesting idea with recording the time instead of giving a certain time, before touching the first digit. And good that you mention the thing with the size of the screen. I have noticed that too, and always adjust the screen to be as small as possible when I do the test myself. And I recommend everyone to do that, simply resize the browser until the squares almost touch eachother, then after that do the test. It is much easier. I have even considered to make it a fixed size, instead of dependent on the browser size. And, yes, when you do the test you realize all kinds of things, how your vision works, how your memory works, and things like that, it can become quite subtle, and many of the things you learn about yourself can be used to improve, at least in the test. | |
| Merlijn (Netherlands) | 2008-05-28 04:59:44 (CET) |
| Hello Magnus, Thanks for your reply. Yes I believe the score is highly dependent on conditioning. These young chimps have trained all their lives on a single programme. In my own programme I have used two different modes: the timer mode, but also the mode of masking on first touch. The candidate can then use an unlimited amount of tme if necessary, but the average time needed for the first touch/click will be recorded. An average of 2 seconds per round is usual for a decent score, and this way you can see your average get lower in time. The chimp, that is to say 'trained Ayumu', used on average about 0.5 seconds for the first touch... But the 5 digits on 210 ms, the test with the students, was a lot easier: without training I scored on average 70% (with a huge standard deviation), so I could reasonably keep up with Ayumu. I made the prototype of my programme years earlier, when only Ai was in the news back then, when she reached a score over 90% on a simpler task. I soon discovered that the size of the screen mattered a lot. A small size with smaller digits is much easier than full screen. Then you have to adjust your vision into a 'broad gaze', in order to catch all numbers. The earlier mentioned huge standard deviation is a result of unexpected placement of numbers while my focus was often limited on only a portion of the screen. This will affect your score negatively if the test is on full screen. So every time you hit the button, you have to adjust your vision, and often I forget this because I focus too much on the task at hand and not on my way of looking at the screen. | |
| Magnus Andersson (Sweden) | 2008-05-23 11:37:46 (CET) |
| Thanks Merlijn, the masking of the digits happens after a certain time, or as soon as one clicks a digit, whichever comes first. I got the impression that that is how it worked in the "real" test on the video, so I just copied that idea so to say. A difference though between the real test and the test on this site is that I use a delay of 1200 ms, whereas the real test use only 600 ms, if I have understood correctly. The first version of my test used 600 ms, but I found it to be too difficult, so I doubled it. I am planning though to make it selectable. Another difference I have introduced just recently, a few days ago, is that when one fails (clicks on a wrong digit), then one is shown all the remaining digits in a gray color, so that one can see where the digits actually were. And, I also made so that when you hit the 8, and only 9 remains, the 9 turns into a Chimpanzee :) My own success rate now, after a lot of practice, is around 63%. But the first times I tried I could only get up to digit 4 or 5, and my initial success rate when I started to succeed was maybe around 10-15%. | |
 Merlijn (Netherlands) | 2008-05-23 00:13:56 (CET) |
| Very nice web application. I wonder if the case of nine digits had a timer for masking, or masking on first touch. I should see the videos again for this, i'm not sure. O yes, my score during the late hours: 20% in 15 rounds. Very slippery... | |
| Alen (Norway) | 2008-02-20 00:06:45 (CET) |
| Awesome test! | |
| Magnus Andersson (Sweden) | 2008-02-04 00:05:08 (CET) |
| James, I actually did start to improve the present version so that it can show more detailed statistics. That version will have to wait a bit though, since I have normal work to do too :) But my idea is to let persons see bar diagrams which show how their ability changes over time, and how the time of the day affects it, etc. Please write me a message through the contact page, providing your email, so that I can write back to you, and we can discuss your idea. | |
| James | 2008-02-03 19:43:23 (CET) |
| I agree with you magnus, that different people have different photographic memory capability, in fact, with your program skill (i believe you used java), you can set up a mini research project all you need is the right participants. if you are interested i can provide you what the layout of the project can be, and what the hypothesis is. If not, then i still want to thank you for putting up a test like this online. | |
| Magnus Andersson (Sweden) | 2008-02-01 02:20:21 (CET) |
| I think that is quite unusual. I have right now 44% and that is an average of over 2000 tests :) (Yes, I admit, I got addicted), but I came up to this level after a long practice. I know, though, that some people have a natural ability for this. I don't think I have that really, my ability is more aquired. But a friend of mine did very good right away, without any practice. I find that very interesting. | |
| James | 2008-01-31 19:04:43 (CET) |
| Thanks magnus, i have been trying the test and i seem to equilibriate at around 34% success rate, and i always do better to start with when i concentrate (success rate of about 80-90%, then as i continue without resting, it falls to 60 (between 30-40 tries) then to 35% (100+ tries) | |