Grid, 25 numbers in order

What it asks of you

Grid asks how fast your eyes scan a scene and lock onto the right target. Each number is a small search, find 7, then 8, then 9, while the others try to catch your eye.

It also asks you to keep the thread for 25 steps. Lose your count and you lose time, so the game rewards calm, steady focus more than rushing.

How to play

1. The grid appears, 25 numbers in random places.
2. Find 1 and tap it, then 2, then 3.
3. Keep going up to 25. The number to find next is shown at the top.
4. A wrong tap adds one second to your time.
5. Your score is your total time in seconds, lower is better.

The research behind it

This is where practice pays off clearly. Visual search is a skill, and searching the same kind of grid again makes you faster at it. Scores on a repeated test rise with practice (Scharfen et al., 2018a), and the large review of brain training studies by Simons and colleagues found solid evidence that people get better at the tasks they practise (Simons et al., 2016).

Its research cousin, the computerized Trail Making Test, also links numbers in order, and it has norms by age group (Woods et al., 2015c). Grid keeps that core, numbers in order under time pressure, in a 30 second round you can play every day.

On your weekly card

Grid feeds your Reflexes stat. It takes turns with Duel in the reflexes slot of the morning routine, so your Reflexes figure blends pure reaction speed and search speed.

On Sunday the reflex games of your week become one figure from 1 to 99.

Questions

Is Grid a Schulte table?

Yes, a 5 by 5 Schulte table. The guide on Schulte tables goes through what research says about them, and the Schulte table test gives the full format.

What is a good time?

There is no published norm for this exact format yet, so the app compares you with your own games. Watching your time drop from week to week is the real reward.

Why does a mistake cost a second?

Without a penalty, tapping at random would pay. The extra second keeps the score honest, speed counts only when it is accurate.

Sources

1. Woods D.L., Wyma J.M., Herron T.J., Yund E.W. (2015). The effects of aging, malingering, and traumatic brain injury on computerized Trail-Making Test performance. PLoS One 10(6), e0124345. PMC4465490. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124345
2. Scharfen J., Peters J.M., Holling H. (2018). Retest effects in cognitive ability tests, a meta-analysis. Intelligence 67, 44 to 66. doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.01.003
3. Simons D.J., Boot W.R., Charness N. et al. (2016). Do brain training programs work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest 17(3), 103 to 186. doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983