Department of Psychology, Drexel University, 3201 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Department of Psychology, Drexel University, 3201 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Neuropsychologia. 2021 Nov 12;162:108044. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.108044. Epub 2021 Oct 2.
There are two general strategies for solving a problem. Insight is the sudden realization of a novel idea or problem solution accompanied by an "aha" experience. Analysis occurs in a conscious, deliberate fashion without an "aha" experience. Previous research has shown that brain activity during a preparatory period immediately before a problem is presented can predict whether the subsequently presented problem will be solved by insight or by analysis. Those prior studies used a type of brief verbal problem called compound remote associates (CRA). To determine whether prestimulus activity predicts subsequent insight versus analytic solving for other types of problems, the present study used an anagram task. We examined high-density electroencephalograms (EEGs) immediately preceding the presentation of anagrams and found that during the 2-s prestimulus interval there was greater beta-band activity recorded over right central-parietal cortex prior to analytic solving compared with insightful solving. EEG source reconstruction showed that this activity originated in left mid-cingulate cortex (MCC) and the right postcentral gyrus. In contrast to prior work, we found no evidence of a significant interaction between insight-related prestimulus brain activity and positive mood, although positive mood was associated with greater activity in anterior cingulate cortex and with a larger number of insight solutions. The present MCC results suggest that participants' anagram-solving strategies may be influenced by allostasis, that is, the estimation and marshalling of neurocognitive resources required to cope with an expected task. Specifically, when a participant adequately prepares for an upcoming problem, then MCC activity is high, enabling solution by resource-intensive analytic processing. Alternatively, when preparation is insufficient for analytic processing, then MCC activity is low and subsequent solving occurs by low-demand insight processing. The current findings and explanatory model differ from those of previous studies that used a CRA task, suggesting the possibility of complex interactions between task-type and procedure-type in determining the nature of prestimulus preparation. Future research examining such interactions may yield results that benefit educators who teach students problem-solving strategies.
有两种解决问题的一般策略。顿悟是指突然意识到一个新颖的想法或问题解决方案,并伴随着一种“啊哈”的体验。分析则是以有意识、深思熟虑的方式进行,没有“啊哈”的体验。先前的研究表明,在呈现问题之前的预备期内大脑活动可以预测随后呈现的问题是通过顿悟还是通过分析来解决。那些先前的研究使用了一种称为复合远程联想(CRA)的简短口头问题。为了确定预备期活动是否可以预测其他类型问题的后续顿悟或分析解决,本研究使用了字谜任务。我们检查了在呈现字谜之前的高分辨率脑电图(EEG),发现与分析解决相比,在分析解决之前,右中央顶叶皮层记录到的β波段活动在 2 秒的预备期内更大。EEG 源重建显示,该活动源自左中扣带皮层(MCC)和右后中央回。与先前的工作不同,我们没有发现顿悟相关预备期大脑活动与积极情绪之间存在显著相互作用的证据,尽管积极情绪与前扣带皮层的更大活动以及更多的顿悟解决方案相关。本研究的 MCC 结果表明,参与者的字谜解决策略可能受到适应的影响,即估计和调动应对预期任务所需的神经认知资源。具体来说,当参与者充分准备即将到来的问题时,MCC 活动就会很高,从而可以通过资源密集型分析处理来解决问题。相反,当准备不足无法进行分析处理时,MCC 活动就会降低,随后就会通过低需求的顿悟处理来解决问题。当前的发现和解释模型与使用 CRA 任务的先前研究不同,这表明在确定预备期准备的性质时,任务类型和程序类型之间可能存在复杂的相互作用。未来研究检验这种相互作用可能会为那些教授学生解决问题策略的教育工作者带来益处。