Flaxseed oil increased how fast I did simple arithmetic problems (e.g., 7+5, 9-4, 3*7). To better measure the effects of fats on my brain, I wanted to find out which problems were most sensitive to flaxseed oil. Then I could hope to create a more sensitive test.
Before looking at the data, I assumed that problems that required more processing — more time — would be more sensitive. But this was not what I found.
First, I compared problems with different functions — plus, minus, and times. (E.g., 5+4 is a plus problem.) Sensitivities:
function….F…..n
plus……..15…..1400
minus…….9…..1400
times……16…..1400
The F values are for the flaxseed/nothing comparison. Greater F = more sensitive. The n values are the number of trials. These results more or less agreed with my preconceptions: times problems were slower than the others.
Then I compared problems based on their correct answers. I divided the problems into groups with roughly equal number of trials. Sensitivities:
answer…F……n
0-3 …..12….1000
4-6……15….700
7-9……..6….900
10-19…..2….900
>19……13….500
This was the surprise: Problems with answers 10-19 contributed almost nothing to the overall sensitivity, while problems with answers on both sides contributed much more. Was typing “1″ the problem? No, problems with the single-digit answer “1″ were no worse than problems with similar one-digit answers.
I redid the analysis omitting problems with answers 10-19 and found more sensitivity to the effects of flaxseed oil — a slightly larger F (or t) value, even though the number of trials was 20% less. Here is a graph based on the more sensitive analysis:
No important differences from the earlier, less sensitive analysis:
Based on these results I will get rid of the subtraction problems and the problems with answers from 10-19. I haven’t decided whether I will keep the total number of problems the same; I might increase the number (which is now 100 — 100 arithmetic problems per session).
I just wanted to point out that for most of these simple problems you are not doing calculations in your head, but rather you are just remembering a memorized answer. This is particularly true for multiplication (where you have memorized the tables) and addition (where you do it so often that you have essentially memorized the answers as well). Subtraction is something you do a bit less often in real life, and thus for some of the subtraction problems you may actually be doing some quick manipulation in your head. So the lower sensitivity of the subtraction problems to the oil might indicate that the oil affects how fast you can call up something from your memory, rather than how fast you can manipulate numbers in your head.
The subtraction problems are very simple, e.g., 9 – 6. Just as easy as 5 + 3, on the face of it. But it’s true that I probably do much more addition than subtraction in everyday life. I can test this idea by seeing if the subtraction problems showed more improvement/session at the beginning than the addition and multiplication problems. If I do them less in real life, they should show more improvement.
is there a way to measure your ability to solve more abstract problems, thereby providing a more meaningful measurement of intelligence and any improvement as the result of consuming omega-3 fatty acids?
“Intelligence” — you mean the ability to do well in school (which is how the first IQ tests were constructed)? It is quite hard to measure the ability to do more abstract problems; I don’t think experimental psychologists have come up with good ways of doing so. My interest is in brain function; arithmetic problems and balance are just two ways to measure that.
Since the whole brain is made of the same materials (neurons and glial cells, etc.), I believe that anything that improves one sort of brain function is likely to improve all sorts of brain function. So far the evidence supports that belief.