Blindfold Cubing Research Study

[cmhardw]

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.

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]

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]

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

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).

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]

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

 

[Mike Hughey]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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!

[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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Pretty awesome video.

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

 

[Pedro]

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]

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.

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.

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.