# Blindfold Cubing Research Study



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 22, 2008)

Hello Everyone,

I am a PhD student in Cognitive Psychology, and I am thinking of doing a study on working memory and blindfold cubing. I don't have any details yet, nor have I decided whether this is going to be just a case study or a project with quantitative rigor. I just learned about blindfold cubing, and I think that it's a spectacular feat, which could provide a great deal of insight into various interesting aspects of cognition, memory, and spatial reasoning. 

However, before I can even write an official proposal, I need to assure my faculty of the feasibility of this research by demonstrating that I can recruit enough participants. Therefore, I would like to find out how many people out there are able to solve the cube blindfolded, would be willing to participate, and are located in (or near) New York City. So, if you think that you might be interested, please shoot me an email with your name (real, or otherwise) and your age (actually, I only need to know if you are over 18 or not, because there are additional review board documents that I will need to complete if I am working with minors). And, of course, all communications are strictly confidential, and additional details are forthcoming.

Thanks a bunch,

Irina Paley
[email protected]


----------



## jonny guitar (Oct 22, 2008)

For a 3x3, it is much easier than you think; I thought it was crazy hard until I found out how to do it. The guys who do 6x6 and 7x7 are a different story...thats just crazy man.

anyway, I am 41, able to do it badly at best, do not live near N.Y. and can't participate. I would however, be very interested in following you research.


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 22, 2008)

As far as I can envision the initial study design, the size of the cube would be irrelevant. But being able to complete it in reasonable time (I am thinking, under 30 minutes, which is a pretty long time to be blindfolded anyway) is important, strictly for practical reasons. 

- Irina


----------



## Escher (Oct 22, 2008)

the vast majority of people who can BLD 3x3 need less than 10 minutes, so half an hour is definitely long enough.
im sure there are plenty who would. This is a very active forum, so expect many replies in the next day or two...
good luck


----------



## Neroflux (Oct 22, 2008)

this researcher needs someone in new york. so it's not about whether you can sub 30 execution, it's where you live.

and if you're willing to help.


----------



## nitrocan (Oct 22, 2008)

Blindfold cubing really is a spectacular feat, but if you learn it, you will know that it's not so hard. You only need to memorise 15-20 Letters/Numbers or 8-9 Image Pairs or you can use visual memo and only keep it them your mind for less than 2 minutes. The important thing is not to make an execution mistake.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with thinking ahead of your moves or thinking where the pieces will be after you do some moves.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Oct 22, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> And it has absolutely nothing to do with thinking ahead of your moves or thinking where the pieces will be after you do some moves.


I disagree. During execution you should be thinking about what you're next moves will be, then you won't have pauses...


----------



## fanwuq (Oct 22, 2008)

I don't know if you can just get people to meet in NYC, perhaps you can come to a competition that is somewhat close?

Blindfold cubing is about
1. understanding the concepts first
2. memorize the cube, it's not just looking at one face at a time and memorize all the colors, it's much easier. You just look at the path that pieces cycle and memorize that, so it is actually just 15-20 pieces to cycle on average. And you are a psychologist, so you know all the memory techniques.
Cognition--recognize the piece and know where it belongs.
3. execution-- I guess there is some spatial thinking involved to setup the pieces to a place you know so you can cycle it.


----------



## shelley (Oct 22, 2008)

Off the top of my head I know of Tyson Mao and Rowe Hessler.

You should get in touch with Bob Burton (his email is listed on the World Cube Association website). He should be familiar with cubers on the east coast/in the NYC area and should be able to recommend more people. He knows how to blindfold solve as well.


----------



## Kian (Oct 22, 2008)

When are you looking to do this study? There is a tournament in Valhalla, NY on the 22nd of November. It's in Westchester, just outside of NYC. There will probably be a least 10 people there capable of solving a cube and I'm sure most (including me) would be happy to help your study.


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 23, 2008)

Thanks for your excellent responses. I will follow up with the people that you recommended. Thanks for that lead. It didn't occur to me to attend a tournament in the area, but that's an outstanding suggestion, although I think that a lot of what I had in mind actually requires that participants come to campus.

You see, my primary area of interest is cognitive neuroscience, and most of my proposals basically consist of finding people who can do something somewhat extraordinary, and looking at their brains through EEG or fMRI techniques. 

So, I thought that people who can solve the cube blindfolded would have enhanced spatial memory, and would, therefore, have a larger hippocampus relative to the overall brain size, as compared to individuals who are not able to solve the cube. This is based, primarily, on old studies of hoarding animals versus non-hoarding animals with same size brains. A modified hypothesis, based on a 2000 study of London taxi drivers, would speculate that folks proficient at solving the cube blindfolded would have an enlarged posterior hippocampus. Either one of those outcomes would be incredibly cool, I think. 

I realize that the notion of going into an fMRI machine might dissuade some potential participants, but on the other hand, it might serve as an incentive for others. Regardless, that portion of the study would come later (which is an academic term for, much much much later, maybe next summer, if ever). So, for now, I am really just looking to see how many people would be interested in participating in something relatively mild - surveys, interviews, an assortment of cognitive and memory tasks, that sort of thing, with the understanding that such participation does not obligate you toward anything more elaborate in the future, and does not preclude you from it either.

Again, thanks to all who have responded.

- Irina


----------



## Bryan (Oct 23, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> So, I thought that people who can solve the cube blindfolded would have enhanced spatial memory, and would, therefore, have a larger hippocampus relative to the overall brain size, as compared to individuals who are not able to solve the cube.



You realize that anyone could solve the cube, right? Most people just choose not to learn.


----------



## fanwuq (Oct 23, 2008)

Bryan said:


> irinaatcolumbia said:
> 
> 
> > So, I thought that people who can solve the cube blindfolded would have enhanced spatial memory, and would, therefore, have a larger hippocampus relative to the overall brain size, as compared to individuals who are not able to solve the cube.
> ...



I disagree, several people just cannot comprehend even how to get the cross after I helped them for several hours. They just can't see the logical way of the pieces moving. They aren't even stupid, in fact, they get very good grade in all classes at school.

Ok, sorry, that was off topic.

I think this is a great research topic. Do you have an abstract or some sort of plan that we can read? So are you going to scan our heads while we are cubing blindfolded? I suspect the activity of the brain when memorizing is very different from when executing.


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 23, 2008)

> You realize that anyone could solve the cube, right? Most people just choose not to learn.



Perhaps, in the same sense that anybody can choose to become a London taxi driver, and be adequate at it. I would be curious to see whether there's a consensus on this among the others. 

It's an interesting assumption, and I think I'll probably have to ignore it. I will have to say that those who can solve the cube blindfolded are unique, and look at the neurological and cognitive effects from that perspective. And while it would be nice to determine whether a neurological property makes somebody excellent at blindfold cubing, or whether the practice necessary to reach that level of dexterity causes the neurological property, that's not something I will (or can) do.

Maybe it would be good to look at those who are extremely skilled at it versus those who are merely adequate, but getting enough subjects would be incredibly difficult.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 23, 2008)

I'm on the east coast, and would love to participate in a study like this. The only downside is that I live in North Carolina :-( I went to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which has a large psychology department. Is there any way you could send the procedure to them, I can participate there, and they can send the data to you? UNC-CH also has a large hospital facility and medical program, so they might have the same machinery that you do, but I'm not certain of this.

If that doesn't work out, then good luck with your research! I agree with some others here that I think anyone is capable to learn how to blindsolve, and that the only difference between highly skilled people and merely adequate people would be practice time and interest level. I have taught kids as young as 2nd and 3rd grade to solve the cube (sighted), and I truly believe that if I had the ability to sit down with each of them for another month that I could have them blindsolving. I guess, try to account for the possibility in your research that you may find no significant difference between highly skilled blindfold cubers and the general population (the only difference being that blindcubers are more motivated to practice blindcubing than the general population). I for one would not be surprised at all if there was no significant difference between blindcubers and the general population.

Chris


----------



## cookingfat (Oct 23, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> I will have to say that those who can solve the cube blindfolded are unique



I believe that anyone could learn how to do it. I'm quite new to cubing (2 months) and I watched a youtube video for blindfold and I learnt it in less than one day. I'm not special or anything, I just took the time to learn it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 23, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> I'm on the east coast, and would love to participate in a study like this. The only downside is that I live in North Carolina :-( I went to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which has a large psychology department. Is there any way you could send the procedure to them, I can participate there, and they can send the data to you? UNC-CH also has a large hospital facility and medical program, so they might have the same machinery that you do, but I'm not certain of this.
> 
> If that doesn't work out, then good luck with your research! I agree with some others here that I think anyone is capable to learn how to blindsolve, and that the only difference between highly skilled people and merely adequate people would be practice time and interest level. I have taught kids as young as 2nd and 3rd grade to solve the cube (sighted), and I truly believe that if I had the ability to sit down with each of them for another month that I could have them blindsolving. I guess, try to account for the possibility in your research that you may find no significant difference between highly skilled blindfold cubers and the general population (the only difference being that blindcubers are more motivated to practice blindcubing than the general population). I for one would not be surprised at all if there was no significant difference between blindcubers and the general population.
> 
> Chris



I'm curious how this will come out too. Chris and I have followed very similar curves in blindfold solving improvement (that is to say, we've been very slow to improve), but we've both gotten kind of good at it. (I'm not as far along the curve as Chris, but the curves look similar.) I am starting to believe that this is because Chris and I are less "talented" than some of the other cubers who have improved much faster (such as Ville, Rafal, and Alex Cook). I have compared number of solves with Joey Gouly, and I am convinced that he was getting sub-minute 3x3x3 BLD solves having made only half the attempts I made in order to get to sub-2 minute solves.

I think a very large percentage of the population has the innate ability to be able to solve a 3x3x3 BLD (much greater than 50%), given the inclination to try. But there does seem to be some difference as to how quickly one can improve. Perhaps that's a difference in the brain, or perhaps that's practice methodology.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 23, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> I'm curious how this will come out too. Chris and I have followed very similar curves in blindfold solving improvement (that is to say, we've been very slow to improve), but we've both gotten kind of good at it. (I'm not as far along the curve as Chris, but the curves look similar.) I am starting to believe that this is because Chris and I are less "talented" than some of the other cubers who have improved much faster (such as Ville, Rafal, and Alex Cook).



Hey Mike,

I have also thought a lot about this. I was also slow to improve at speedsolving the 3x3x3 despite the desire to get faster and despite practicing a lot. I have come to believe though that a lot of my error was in bad practice habits, and bad solving habits. I'm currently still trying to break some of my old bad habits to try to get faster.

As for BLD, I am trying not to succumb to the concept of "talent" or "intelligence" which I am trying hard not to believe in. What I find hard to reconcile with my idea that there is no such thing as "intelligence" is that some people are extremely fast with pure visual memorization, and others like me have a hard time with it. I wonder if that is just how some people have a preference over visual thinking vs. say more database style algorithmic thinking (roman rooms/journeys). I think that if someone wanted to achieve top level blindsolving times, if they found the right memory method for them and practiced a LOT that it could be done.

I do think some people learn faster than others, and this is the only thing I would attribute the name "intelligence" or "talent". So those people can learn faster than others, but I don't think that such a person has more or less capacity for knowledge, they just absorb and learn much quicker than most.



> But there does seem to be some difference as to how quickly one can improve. Perhaps that's a difference in the brain, or perhaps that's practice methodology.



Yeah I definitely agree with this. I wonder if this really is a difference in the brain, or like you say if it is just bad or less than world class practice routines. Or maybe a mix of both?

Chris


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 23, 2008)

Hi Chris and Mike. Thanks for your response, even though it is completely not what I expected to hear. 

Every other population that I consider to be extraordinary in some ability would never (ever ever) claim that what they do is not somehow unique. The question of whether distinctive brain physiology causes the ability, or the practice causes the distinctive brain physiology is obviously open. 

I am yet to meet a chess or music prodigy who will say "anyone can do what I do if only they try really hard." I am not sure what that means about you guys, but there we have it anyway.



> I wonder if that is just how some people have a preference over visual thinking vs. say more database style algorithmic thinking (roman rooms/journeys).



Yes, most emphatically, yes. At least, according to Howard Gardner, and his theory of multiple intelligence, which is widely accepted by most psychologists, and, less notably, me. One of his intelligences is "visual-spatial," which is the ability to think in terms of physical space. Another one is the "logical-mathematical" intelligence, which is obvious through an individual's capacity for abstraction, and the tendency to experiment and solve puzzles easily.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 23, 2008)

What an interesting discussion! I used visual memorization for a while for edges in 3x3x3 (back when I was using 3OP to do edges), and it greatly increased my speed. Then I switched to M2, and I didn't bother to try to use visual memorization, because I've always been a little uncomfortable with it anyway (it feels less secure), and because I was able with M2 to get faster times than I ever got with 3OP, even using images.

It is interesting to note that most (but not all) of the really fast people use some sort of pure or near-pure visual method. Of the exceptions, at least two of them I would say use a surprisingly simple memory method: Rafal just uses simple stories, and Tim Habermaas uses a well-practiced but simple system with single images per piece. So it seems as if complex memory methods are not conducive to really fast BLD solving.

irinaatcolumbia, I think the difference here is that when you talk to chess or music prodigies, you're talking to people who have distinguished themselves from a very large population with their achievements. There are many millions who play musical instruments or play chess, and only a very small percentage of them can claim to be prodigies. But with cubing, we still don't have a very large population, and it's all very new, so we don't know how good people can really be yet. I played chess when I was younger, and I still play piano; I was pretty passable at both, but never a prodigy. Still, I felt like the same thing was to some degree true for those - if I had tried REALLY hard, I feel like I could have been perceived as a prodigy too. The problem is that when comparing against a sample of millions of people, trying hard would mean something like practicing piano for 10 hours a day. And clearly most people won't do that. So is "trying really hard" merely a decision, or is it something you have to be born with - a desire to work that hard on it? It makes this sort of thing very hard to study or try to draw any definitive conclusions about.

If you performed what would be a very cruel experiment and locked up a bunch of average young children in rooms with pianos (and occasionally a piano teacher) and told them that in order for them to get their next meal, they must practice to meet their teacher's satisfaction, might you not wind up with a whole bunch of piano prodigies? I think you really might. Of course, it would be unconscionably cruel, but I really suspect it would work.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 23, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> irinaatcolumbia, I think the difference here is that when you talk to chess or music prodigies, you're talking to people who have distinguished themselves from a very large population with their achievements. There are many millions who play musical instruments or play chess, and only a very small percentage of them can claim to be prodigies. But with cubing, we still don't have a very large population, and it's all very new, so we don't know how good people can really be yet.



I think that's an excellent point. Lars Petrus a couple years ago said something similar about how times were progressively getting faster, but all of us cubers still have lives/school/work/etc. to worry about. If ever there was a professional cuber, whose living it was to get fast times and win tournaments, we would probably see all current records blown away by a very large margin. I think that still holds true even today, with times as fast as they are right now.



> If you performed what would be a very cruel experiment and locked up a bunch of average young children in rooms with pianos (and occasionally a piano teacher) and told them that in order for them to get their next meal, they must practice to meet their teacher's satisfaction, might you not wind up with a whole bunch of piano prodigies? I think you really might. Of course, it would be unconscionably cruel, but I really suspect it would work.



I do agree that such an experiment, although cruel, would probably have an extremely high chance of producing nearly all the children as piano prodigies. I think the same experiment could be done to produce world class prodigies at nearly anything. Normal prodigies have a very strong desire to succeed, and use that as their motivation. Arguably everyone has a very strong desire to survive, so this cruel experiment turns your survival motivation into motivation to do well at whatever task you are forced to do. Not to say that I condone this experiment or something like it, but I do believe it would have a high success rate for producing child prodigies.

Chris


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 23, 2008)

Mike, perhaps "prodigy" was not the best word to use. In chess, I am thinking of somebody who maintains a consistent 1800-1900 USCF rating, playing a dozen or so tournaments a year. Somebody like that. Not a prodigy, but definitely somebody who is more than just passable. There is no equivalent rating system in music, so I'll drop that example. 

There are a lot of learning theory implications here. 

I think your experiment would not work with chess, I really don't. Because there is a binary outcome to chess, it would be a better experiment. Playing music to a teacher's satisfaction is still somewhat subjective, don't you think? If you lock a bunch of 1200 rated players, and told them that in order for them to get their next meal they must practice and beat a 1900 rated player, well, you would end up with a lot of dead 1200 rated players. 

Besides, I've seen your youtube videos, and I am really not able to accept that what you can do is anything but extremely unusual.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 23, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> Mike, perhaps "prodigy" was not the best word to use. In chess, I am thinking of somebody who maintains a consistent 1800-1900 USCF rating, playing a dozen or so tournaments a year. Somebody like that. Not a prodigy, but definitely somebody who is more than just passable. There is no equivalent rating system in music, so I'll drop that example.
> 
> There are a lot of learning theory implications here.
> 
> ...



You might be right about chess. I worked on chess pretty much when I was in high school, but never really got any good. (At my best, I was probably about 1600, pretty rotten. Recently, when I play against computers they tend to rank me around 1400 - even worse.) My big problem there, though, was probably that I almost never had any good opponents to learn from. The difficulty here is that it is hard to construct a training program based on proper rewards. How would you train chess? You can't just have a 1200 player go directly after a 1900 player - that's too much improvement to even know where to begin. There have been some good training program ideas out there for chess, but none that have really been nicely proven. Probably some of the Russian schools have some, but I don't know that much about them. (One of my favorites that I really wanted to try, but never quite got motivated enough to do, was this one: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf. It would be interesting to see if it really worked - perhaps you could try my experiment with chess with this?) On the other hand, some training programs for piano have been shown to be quite successful; what I'm saying is that this whole idea requires a good training program to be successful.

Playing music to a teacher's satisfaction is subjective, but if you had what would be considered a traditional "good teacher" (say, one who had taught more than one prodigy before at some point or another), I believe if that teacher just used their normal judgments for teaching, they could coax great things out of most any student with "proper motivation" like this. I'm a part-time piano teacher myself, and it seems like most anyone can learn surprisingly much given the proper motivation.

As for my YouTube videos, the big difference between me and other big cube BLD solvers (other than how slow I am at 3x3x3 speedcubing, which is admittedly a big difference ) is the fact that I have done at least 3 4x4x4 BLD attempts and at least 3 5x5x5 BLD attempts every single week without fail for over a year (and often times I have done many more than that). And now I've been doing at least one 6x6x6 BLD and one 7x7x7 BLD attempt each week since they were available. That gives me MUCH more experience than almost anyone else in the world at it. (I know of only Chris Hardwick and István Kocza who might have done more, and I guess I'm not sure how much Rafal Guzewicz or Rowe Hessler have practiced.) So I suspect the difference here between me and others is simply motivation. For some weird reason, I feel compelled to practice big cubes BLD lots. If others did, they might be much better than me. People like Ville Seppänen and Alex Cook have gotten better than me at big cubes BLD with far less practice than me.

I think that back when I started, instructions for learning how to do big cubes BLD were scattered and somewhat hard to understand, so there was a barrier to learning how to do it. If someone were to take time to develop a training program for solving big cubes BLD, I suspect we'd see lots of people doing it.

(If in thinking of my videos, you were thinking of the juggling one, again this is just possible because I've practiced juggling for 30 years, so I'm passable at it. Most people in the cubing community aren't jugglers, so I have an advantage in that the "event" is tailor-made for me to succeed at. If you had an event requiring playing bass with one hand while solving a cube with the other, Dan Cohen and Rama Temmink would naturally seem impossibly good at it, since they already worked on both skills individually for so long. And with just a little practice, I'm sure Macky (who is also a skilled juggler) could outdo my juggling and solving behind the back video.)

Whew - sorry to write so much.


----------



## hr.mohr (Oct 23, 2008)

This study really sounds interesting, as most studies of the cube only are about the math. 

I also think that the reason you would expect to have special abilities if you know how to solve the cube are part of the culture icon that the rubiks cube stand for. It's often used as a metaphor for an impossible mission or a long task. So the idea of doing it blindfolded really sounds like a super human thing to do. But it's really more a memory sport and really has little to do with speed solving.

So I would be more interested in a study of speed solvers. The fast guys are able to see a better solution faster than the average cuber. And they are faster at recognizing which algorithm to use next. It will also be interesting to study how people remembers algorithms. Some uses mainly muscle memory and can't write the algorithm without doing the turns and others are able to dictate the moves, team blindfold solving.


----------



## brunson (Oct 23, 2008)

This is a fascinating thread. Mike and Chris, I always enjoy reading your posts, they are invariably thoughtful and insightful and this is no exception. I have a brief comment and a question. 

While reading the comments of the posters stating that solving a cube, blindfolded or otherwise, is not an extraordinary feat, I was reminded of a thought I had while showing my younger brother how to solve a cube back in April. I'm also of the opinion that it isn't a tremendous feat, but you have to *want* to solve it. That desire could be a pre-qualifying trait make the set of cubers a self selecting population. Look at some of the kids (I use that term in paternal form, not a pejorative) on this forum. Johannes is 16 years old and programming stuff I wouldn't have imagined doing at that age. Lucas and others constantly amaze me with their understanding of mathematics that far outstripped what I knew as a senior in HS taking calculus. This is an exceptional group of young adults.

The question (slightly off topic) is for Chris. As an older cuber struggling to break a sub-30 average, I also feel I suffer from bad practice habits. Most importantly, I tend to solve idly, without focus on my weaknesses, e.g. look ahead. Would you mind sharing some of your "bad practice habits" so I can avoid them, too? Any tips on specific "good habits" your worked on? (I guess that's two questions)

Irina, it certainly sounds like a very interesting study. What do you think of my conjecture that cubers self select? Would that influence any sort of "control group" selection? Please keep us all informed about your progress, it certainly seems very, very cool.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 23, 2008)

brunson, I was trying to hint at what you're suggesting in my comments. I do think there's a self-selecting that goes on with a lot of these kinds of things, exactly as you describe. Why is it that some people want to do these sorts of things more than others do? I think that if you can provide sufficient motivation, almost anyone can do it. For instance, I think you could walk up to anyone on the street (well, over the age of 8 or so - for one thing they have to be old enough to actually care about the money!) and offer them $1,000,000 if they can learn in the next 6 months to solve a cube blindfolded, while providing the help of a good blindfold solver, and over 90% of the population would be able to do it, given that motivation. But if you take away that rather heavy incentive, the number of people who would do it goes down drastically.

(Edit: now that I think about it, it would probably be less than 90%, simply because greater than 10% would probably believe they had no chance of doing it, and therefore wouldn't try. So you'd also have to be able to convince the person that it was possible in order for them to do it.)

Oh, and brunson, even though you asked Chris (and not me, since I'm in as bad shape as you on speedsolving), I thought I'd offer this: Shaden Smith just noticed last weekend that I almost always use wrist turns for U2, instead of fingertricks. I'm good about using fingertricks for U and U', but I use wrist turns for U2. I actually looked for that sort of thing, and was completely blind to it until last weekend. Now I'm having to relearn everything - F2L insertions, OLLs, PLLs. I'm several seconds slower now, but I really think that once I get it back up to speed, I'm going to cut several seconds off very fast.


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 24, 2008)

hr.mohr - excellent suggestions! At this point, I am primarily interested in the memory task, which is why blindfold cubing is my focus. The memory task involved here is incredible, based on what we know about working memory limitations. So, I want to look at that. Speed solving and algorithm selection are extremely interesting too, and have amazing implications for many important topics in cogntion and learning. I'd love to look at that, or read about somebody who has.

Brunson - self selection is an important problem is social science. Ok, I accept that cubers probably self select. Almost every interesting population does, which makes the problem of determining causation nearly impossible. So, we just ignore it. There is still a lot of valuable insight to be gained from studying the problem solving process, the working memory limitations, and the neurological differences. 

Mike - yes, I accept your argument of motivation. I still think that you, and others who can solve the cube blindfolded, are performing a difficult and unique task, and I suspect that you will (as a result of it, or because of it) demonstrate neurocognitive differences from the non-blindfold-cubing population. And I'd very much like to look inside your head to see if that's the case.

- Irina


----------



## KConny (Oct 24, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia: I don't want to spoil your research but you should take a look at this video, around 4:30.


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 24, 2008)

That's fantastic! I was thinking that fMRI would be easier, because EEG is time dependent, and the results are too hard to analyze. But their images look great. I wish I knew what they were saying.

The only EEG studies I've seen done on cubers were from the 80s, where they were looking at epileptic seizures that were induced by solving the rubik's cube (and solving hard math problems, as well as some other activities). I wonder what question these researchers were looking at. Not that just looking at a cool brain isn't enough.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 24, 2008)

brunson said:


> The question (slightly off topic) is for Chris. As an older cuber struggling to break a sub-30 average, I also feel I suffer from bad practice habits. Most importantly, I tend to solve idly, without focus on my weaknesses, e.g. look ahead. Would you mind sharing some of your "bad practice habits" so I can avoid them, too? Any tips on specific "good habits" your worked on?



[off topic]
Hi Brunson,

Some of the stuff I do is the same that Mike has already mentioned. I used to use wrist turns to do U layer turns, as Mike mentioned. So far I've pretty much completely weaned myself off of doing that. Now I am working on always using "good" triggers, and never "bad" triggers.

For example, say I have to do R U2 R' to insert a pair. A "bad" way to do this, which is how I used to do this all the time, was R then flick U with my index finger then U again with my middle finger, then do R' with the wrist. A "good" trigger for this is to do R with the wrist, thumb turn U', then using my left hand index trigger U' again, then do R' with the wrist. An even better way to do this, if edge controlling allows it, is to do U' with the right thumb, then R then U' again with the left index, then R'.

It's things like that, which during the course of a solve will be several instances where a couple tenths of a second were lost. These add up to make the overall time slower than it could be.

For the longest time my philosophy on improvement was to use the evolution algorithm. I would change one small thing in my solving for that day, and see if the change was a good change or a bad change. If I liked the change (meaning it made my averages faster, or felt easier/better) then I'd keep it and make it my new routine. If I didn't like the change I'd ditch the idea and not revisit it.

This way works, but for one it's slow, and two it doesn't always lead to the most optimal way to do things. Also, don't just do solves over and over ad nauseum until your times get faster. I used to do that too, and I think this is one of the main reasons, if not *the* main reason why I was slow to improve. Now I approach it as an hour spent learning a new alg and making it subconcious is worth at least a week's worth of practicing without doing anything new, if not more. So I try to work on my algs, or my execution of my F2L ("good" triggers vs. "bad" triggers).

I know that's overall kind of vague, but to be perfectly honest this is still something I am working on to this day, so I consider myself still learning as far as this kind of practice method is concerned.

Hoped that helped at least a little, sorry if it was kind of vague but I'm still new to this myself ;-)

[/off topic]

Chris


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 24, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> I still think that you, and others who can solve the cube blindfolded, are performing a difficult and unique task, and I suspect that you will (as a result of it, or because of it) demonstrate neurocognitive differences from the non-blindfold-cubing population. And I'd very much like to look inside your head to see if that's the case.



Well, I wish I could let you look inside my head, but I live in Indianapolis, so it doesn't seem very likely. Anyway, I'm very interested in hearing the results of your study.


----------



## hr.mohr (Oct 24, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> hr.mohr - excellent suggestions! At this point, I am primarily interested in the memory task, which is why blindfold cubing is my focus. The memory task involved here is incredible, based on what we know about working memory limitations.
> - Irina



Well it's really nothing compared to the people that do "pure" memory sports like speed memorization of a deck of cards and the digits of pi. When you memorize the cube you dont memorize the configuration you memorize the solution in cycles. The example solve that Stefan Pochmann displays in his classic method only requires you to remember 20 images.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 24, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> The memory task involved here is incredible, based on what we know about working memory limitations.



Wowowow... what?! I get the feeling you suffer from one of the big misconceptions about blindcubing. Please clarify: Do you think we keep a mental representation of the cube in our head and update it with every turn we make?


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 24, 2008)

Ok Stefan, thanks for bringing that up! I was reading through the 3-cycle method for blindfold cubing (source: cubefreak.net) and I understand that it requires that the cuber visually memorize the patterns of each cycle. That's still not easy. I am slowly reading through the threads in the blindfolding section of the forum, and realize that there are variations that other people use, but there is still a component which requires the visual memorization of patterns. That's the part that I am interested in.


----------



## joey (Oct 24, 2008)

Really, blindfold is easy. I think anyone can do it with a little practice.

Obviously people who use freestyle and visual are leaugues above everyone else. Right?


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 24, 2008)

joey said:


> Really, blindfold is easy. I think anyone can do it with a little practice.



Agreed.



> Obviously people who use freestyle and visual are leaugues above everyone else. Right?



In all seriousness I'm now starting to wonder if there might be some merit to that statement. I'm interested to see the results of the study.

Chris


----------



## joey (Oct 24, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> In all seriousness I'm now starting to wonder if there might be some merit to that statement.


There must be at least some merit, I did write it.


----------



## Escher (Oct 24, 2008)

lol joey, you are funny


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 24, 2008)

joey said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > In all seriousness I'm now starting to wonder if there might be some merit to that statement.
> ...



Haha nice ;-)

Chris


----------



## Stefan (Oct 24, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> I understand that it requires that the cuber visually memorize the patterns of each cycle.


Nah... not really.

We don't think in terms of single turns. That's possible, but unnecessarily hard and takes much longer. No, we think in terms of whole turn sequences. Each having very little, very targeted effects. Using that idea, basically you can somewhat solve the cube one piece at a time. You just memorize a list of about 20 items that you read off of the scrambled cube, then blindfolded you recall that list and for each item you do something to solve it.

It's like you memorize a string of let's say 30 digits, then blindfolded you recall that list and for every "7" you wave your right hand, for every "3" you stomp with your left foot, for every "4" you nod, etc. Really, there's nothing more to it. Just memorize a list of items and recall them, doing something associated to each item. And you do know about story/loci/etc memory methods, right?

Being able to walk and talk and read and write ought to be considered much more impressive. Seriously.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 24, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Nah... not really.
> 
> We don't think in terms of single turns. That's possible, but unnecessarily hard and takes much longer. No, we think in terms of whole turn sequences. Each having very little, very targeted effects. Using that idea, basically you can somewhat solve the cube one piece at a time. You just memorize a list of about 20 items that you read off of the scrambled cube, then blindfolded you recall that list and for each item you do something to solve it.
> 
> ...



Stefan, that's an extremely lucid and clear explanation of blindfolded cubing in my opinion. Irina, perhaps this explains why blindfold cubers seem different than other populations you've studied? Stefan really hit the nail on the head here with that example. That's why we all say blindfold cubing is not very hard - because it simply isn't.

Chris


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 24, 2008)

Exactly.

Perhaps another way to think of it is this: It is approximately equally difficult to memorize the cube, then while blindfolded take the pieces out a few at a time and put them back in in the solved state (preferably on a loose cube). Although it would most likely take a good bit longer to solve it by disassembling and reassembling, since it's faster to do the move sequences than it is to pop a few pieces out and then pop them back in. And it would be an awful lot easier to mess up when popping pieces.

And that gives me an idea for a new event.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Oct 24, 2008)

So, I haven't been very involved in this discussion, because I even live on the other coast, but nevertheless...



irinaatcolumbia said:


> I was reading through the 3-cycle method for blindfold cubing (source: cubefreak.net) and I understand that it requires that the cuber visually memorize the patterns of each cycle. That's still not easy.


Well, actually, it is. Mike, Stefan, and Chris are giving good explanations of how blindfolded solving can be reduced to remembering alternate information more easily. But I've tried memory methods, and they never managed to become faster or easier than visual. It's actually annoyingly easy, because you don't parse the cube as much (you just extract actual cycles, instead of pre-contrived images or words).



Mike Hughey said:


> And that gives me an idea for a new event.


This is fun, indeed. I've had a 10-minute DNF off by a 3 pieces, I think.


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 24, 2008)

By what factor does complexity of the memory task increase when it is a bigger cube 4x4x4 or 5x5x5?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 24, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > And that gives me an idea for a new event.
> ...


I guess I should have guessed that you had already tried it. 

I have a coworker who is regularly coming up with ideas for new events for me, and then I always give him the unofficial world record for his "new" idea, as well as my personal best. It's kind of fun.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 24, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> By what factor does complexity of the memory task increase when it is a bigger cube 4x4x4 or 5x5x5?



3x3x3 is 20 pieces to place.
4x4x4 is 56 pieces.
5x5x5 is 92 pieces.
6x6x6 is 152 pieces.
7x7x7 is 212 pieces.

(I did these numbers really fast - I'm sure someone else here will correct me if I got any of them wrong.)

In every case, odds are that some of the pieces will be correctly placed before you start, so the number is slightly lowered by this. It is likely that more pieces will be placed correctly when starting with even cubes (4x4x4 and 6x6x6) than with odd cubes, because you can take advantage of not having fixed centers and orient the cube to maximize the number of already solved pieces. So actually, if you just use the numbers above, it gives a slight overrepresentation of how difficult the even cubes are.


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 24, 2008)

Ok, Mike - so in the video where you solve the 6x6x6 blindfolded, you are remembering information necessary to place about 150 pieces, right? So, you memorize a list of about 150 items?

For a very long time, the magic number for short term memory capacity was 7 items, plus or minus two. Recent research indicates that this number is still pretty accurate, when it comes to undergrad university students (typical subjects for most psych studies) trying to recall lists of digits. However, capacity has been shown to vary depending on the information being memorized and the population being tested. 

Now, I realize that you are using chunking, which diminishes the difficulty of the memory task significantly. And I am still trying to figure out whether most techniques require the use of the visuospatial working memory component, the phonological/articulatory one, or the central executive component (this is referring to the Baddeley model for working memory). Regardless, remembering 150 of anything (or 90, or even 50) is not standard, even if it may seem easy to you.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Oct 24, 2008)

It's different from recalling digits, though. I would describe it as watching a movie, and being able to recall plot points. For the most part you can do it without much effort. Solving the larger cubes blindfolded are more like remembering the plot to a film series. Still very possible, it just takes some more time and effort.


----------



## brunson (Oct 24, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> Almost every interesting population does, which makes the problem of determining causation nearly impossible. So, we just ignore it.


I don't know why this made me laugh, but it did. 


Mike Hughey said:


> Shaden Smith just noticed last weekend that I almost always use wrist turns for U2, instead of fingertricks. I'm good about using fingertricks for U and U', but I use wrist turns for U2. I actually looked for that sort of thing, and was completely blind to it until last weekend. Now I'm having to relearn everything - F2L insertions, OLLs, PLLs. I'm several seconds slower now, but I really think that once I get it back up to speed, I'm going to cut several seconds off very fast.


I've been taking some time whenever I can find it (between two kids, a wife and a job) and studying the OLL videos Harris put up on his new channel. Watching his execution has helped me pick up on things exactly like you point out. His execution of U2 is very much like Chris describes, so I'm definitely in the same boat as you when it comes to improving my fingertricks. Thanks for the help!


cmhardw said:


> [off topic]
> I know that's overall kind of vague, but to be perfectly honest this is still something I am working on to this day, so I consider myself still learning as far as this kind of practice method is concerned.
> 
> Hoped that helped at least a little, sorry if it was kind of vague but I'm still new to this myself ;-)
> [/off topic]


Not at all, there were a couple of new ideas in there, but most importantly it reinforces what others have told me that focused practice yields better results than just solving. Thanks for the feedback


cmhardw said:


> > Obviously people who use freestyle and visual are leaugues above everyone else. Right?
> 
> 
> In all seriousness I'm now starting to wonder if there might be some merit to that statement. I'm interested to see the results of the study.


Inira, I know you're reading about blindsolving methods, be sure to get the low down on "Classic Pochmann". Joey makes a very excellent point about solving methods. As Stefan points out, different techniques isolate parts of the cube and manipulate them using techniques that leave the rest of the cube unchanged. I could see the argument that 3-cycle, Freestyle, TurBo, etc. take quite a bit more brainpower like you're looking for than, say, Pochman (no insult to Pochmann, the person or the method implied) as they're tracking multiple changes over the cube in a single operation. I'm currently learning Pochmann as my first BLD method and have never had a successful solve, so please take these comments with a grain of salt, someone experienced in more than one of these methods could easily dispute them if I'm offbase.

Memory techniques, as opposed to solving methods, may or may not be interesting to your study, but would be very interesting to our community if you were to note that about your test subjects. Also, differences in the parts of the brain activated during memorization and execution would probably be pretty interesting.



StefanPochmann said:


> Being able to walk and talk and read and write ought to be considered much more impressive. Seriously.


Astute, as always.

It's almost like watching a magic trick. If you don't know how it's done, then it's simply fantastic, but even if you do know the "trick" you can still appreciate the skill that goes into the performance.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 24, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> Ok, Mike - so in the video where you solve the 6x6x6 blindfolded, you are remembering information necessary to place about 150 pieces, right? So, you memorize a list of about 150 items?



Well, yes, with chunking as you say. I do these with images associated with letter pairs, so each image represents 2 items. Like several others on here (Chris was apparently the first to use this technique for BLD cubing), I use a pre-memorized list of images, with one image for each possible combination of two letters A-X, which makes it very quick to come up with images for the pieces. Then I place 3 of these images into each location in my rooms, and I typically use about 8 locations per room.

So for a 6x6x6, I do about 150 pieces, about 75 images, about 25 locations, or 3 rooms, depending on how you want to measure it.


----------



## KConny (Oct 24, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia: I'm going to link you to yet another youtube video. This man seems just as sceptical as you do, but got convinced.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9NROegsMqNc


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 25, 2008)

Yes, KConny, I've seen this. Such techniques are popular. (Most accessible catalog that I've seen is presented in Tom Stafford's excellent book, "Mind Hacks" from O'Reilly). And I will accept that many people can learn them, and also, that most don't. And here we have blindfold cubers who do, constantly, and consistently. So I want to figure out what that implies (ignoring the whole bit about motivation, discussed previously in the thread).


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 25, 2008)

I think it may be important to consider that blindsolving may be easy for cubers to pick up, anyone who is adept or even capable of solving a cube. But its important to consider that the people who are interested and are able to solve a Rubik's cube are not usually your everyday human. We have different talents, as showcased by some of the math topics in the off-topic forum 
I don't think its accurate to say that anyone could solve the cube blindfolded. I know people personally who could not solve it visually. I can only recall of one person who learned BLD before sighted. I think that that weeds out a lot of people who would not be able to solve blindfolded.


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 25, 2008)

> Almost every interesting population does, which makes the problem of determining causation nearly impossible. So, we just ignore it.
> 
> 
> > I don't know why this made me laugh, but it did.



Mokita is a word in Papua New Guinea, which means "something that we all know to be true, but agree not to talk about." In my opinion, that word should be the motto of all social science research, which would be impossible without it. If I decided to take a degree in engineering, I'd probably have my programming fingers chopped off for even suggesting such a notion!


----------



## Aub227 (Oct 25, 2008)

Hi, I'm definitely interested in participating. I live in Vernon, NJ, but spend a lot of time in Boonton (about 45 minutes from the NYC). I'll be 40 next month and can solve the cube blindfolded. As a lot of people stated already, it is not as difficult as one would expect. I think it's just a matter of commitment to learn and not be afraid of failure. On a good day, if I'm going for speed, I'll average 30-35 second memorization and a minute to execute. However, in going for a fast time, my success rate is no where near if I take my time and "make sure" I get a successful solve (about 1 minute memo, 1:30 - 2 minutes execution). -- Auburn


----------



## Pedro (Oct 25, 2008)

this topic is really cool 

I wish I lived in the US and NY 

I remember there was a video on youtube of Sinpei Araki doing blindfolded solves while in a rollercoaster and they examined his brain, too (not while in the rollercoaster )

I know nothing about the brain functions and etc, but blindfolded cubing is easy with the memory methods. I personally don't use them for single cubes, I just "see" the cycles/cube in my mind and am able to remember it. Not every time, of course.
For multiple cubes I use the roman rooms method and I have an image associated with each sticker on the cube, which I combine to make pairs (representing the cycles) and put them on my locations. I find remembering more than 2 cubes just "visually" or with rote memory, as they call it, really hard.

I'd like to know how the study goes


----------



## Lucas Garron (Oct 25, 2008)

Pedro said:


> I remember there was a video on youtube of Sinpei Araki doing blindfolded solves while in a rollercoaster and they examined his brain, too (not while in the rollercoaster )


Indeed. This video.


----------



## pjk (Oct 25, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> Pedro said:
> 
> 
> > I remember there was a video on youtube of Sinpei Araki doing blindfolded solves while in a rollercoaster and they examined his brain, too (not while in the rollercoaster )
> ...


Pretty awesome video.

I've been reading this topic quite a lot, and definitely interested in the study. Please keep us posted.


----------



## Pedro (Oct 25, 2008)

haha...reading back the topic (specifically page 3, which I kinda skipped the first time) I found the link to the video, by Kconny...

I feel kinda stupid/lazy now


----------



## Stefan (Oct 25, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> For a very long time, the magic number for short term memory capacity was 7 items, plus or minus two.



I don't understand why you keep talking about short term or working memory. We do *not* need to store much stuff there, we can use memory methods using the power of *long* term memory. Back when I blindsolved my first 5x5x5 I was able to recall it three weeks afterwards without having recalled it in the meantime. I was actually worried I might never forget it and it'd get in the way in future blindsolves.

Do you think when Mike blindsolves a 6x6x6 he keeps 150 items in his short term memory? He does not! I'm not saying this is impossible if the items are small enough and using powerful chunking, but that's just not needed here.



irinaatcolumbia said:


> Now, I realize that you are using chunking, which diminishes the difficulty of the memory task significantly.



Yes we might use some chunking, but that's mainly to be a little more efficient. And for example Tim, who holds the multiblind record solving 24 cubes blindfolded at once, doesn't use chunking.



irinaatcolumbia said:


> Regardless, remembering 150 of anything (or 90, or even 50) is not standard, even if it may seem easy to you.



What?! I'm sure you know many thousands of words together with their meaning including pictures, for example you know what "dog", "cat", or "fish" means and how they look like. Are you telling me this is not standard?

Although... like others have said or hinted at, it *is* possible to blindsolve without loci/story methods but instead pure visual or auditory memory, perhaps with strong chunking, so somewhat using short term memory alone. That's mostly for a single 3x3, though, the more stuff you memorize the more advantageous loci/story get. So it's possible to blindsolve at least one 3x3 with short term memory alone, but I want to stress the fact that this is not at all necessary like you seem to think!

Anyway, maybe you should differentiate and not just ask for any blindcubers, but only the really good ones or those who do use only short term memory. I fall in neither category, I'm slow and rely on methods anybody can learn and use. I'm not saying the top guys aren't special, I'm just saying you don't need to be special to blindcube.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 25, 2008)

Yeah, Irina, if you want to check out significant visual memory feats by blindfold cubers, you probably don't have too many people to choose from. Ville says he usually uses visual memorization, even for 5x5x5 BLD. And Rowe Hessler does as well. There are a few others who use visual for 4x4x4 BLD. If you look at people like them doing 5x5x5 BLD, you're looking at a pretty significant amount being memorized with visual memory. But you don't have many people to choose from for that.


----------



## irinaatcolumbia (Oct 25, 2008)

> ...if you want to check out significant visual memory feats by blindfold cubers, you probably don't have too many people to choose from.



Hmm, that's thoroughly disappointing. I think I have to figure out, more specifically, what goes one when you solve it blindfolded, perhaps, by trying it out myself.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Oct 25, 2008)

irinaatcolumbia said:


> > ...if you want to check out significant visual memory feats by blindfold cubers, you probably don't have too many people to choose from.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, that's thoroughly disappointing. I think I have to figure out, more specifically, what goes one when you solve it blindfolded, perhaps, by trying it out myself.



I also think that would be a great way to really get an idea of what goes on inside the head during a solve. Since most of this topic has been about letter-pair images and storing those, I'd say that Classic Pochmann or M2 would be the most applicable methods for you to learn. 3-Cycle is still an option, but I believe that Classic-Pochmann and M2 are more suitable for a letter-pair memory system.


----------

