MOVEMENTS IN THE STRUCTURE OF INSIGHT PROBLEM SOLVING (THE CASE OF NINE-DOT PROBLEM)

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Existing data about the effect of concomitant or preceding motor activity on the process of insight problem solving conflicts with modern theories of insight. Therefore, it requires more detailed research of motor activity in the insight problem solving. This study investigates the regular changes of motor activity in the process of solving a classical insight problem “9 dots” (nine-dot problem). To register the motor activity parameters (length of the motor units, velocity of implementation of the motor units, duration of the pauses between the motor units) and to present conditions of the problem a tablet was used. As a result, persistent differences in the motor activity were found between successful and unsuccessful solvers in the initial and final stage of the problem solution. It turned out that successful solvers demonstrated a greater length of motor units (especially at the final stage of the solution) than unsuccessful ones. At the same time, differences in the duration of pauses between the motor units atthe initial and final stages of the solution were not found. Subjects who did and did not solve the problem do not differ in the duration of pauses between the motor units. It was found that at the final stage the frequency of the “fast” lines increases which can be associated primarily with the “offline” planning of motor activity that is the planning preceding the activity itself, rather than proceeding in parallel with it.

About the authors

Nikita I Loginov

Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации

Author for correspondence.
Email: lognikita@yandex.ru

Researcher in Cognitive Research Lab of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

проспект Вернадского, 82, стр. 1, Москва, Россия, 119571

Vladimir F Spiridonov

Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации

Email: vfspiridonov@yandex.ru

Doctor of Psychological Science, Professor of the General Psychology Department of Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

проспект Вернадского, 82, стр. 1, Москва, Россия, 119571

Oleg A Mezentsev

Национальный исследовательский университет «Московский энергетический институт»

Email: mezentsevoa@mpei.ru

Head of the Department of software, hardware and office equipment of the National Research University “Moscow Power Engineering Institute”

Красноказарменная ул., 14, Москва, Россия, 111250

References

  1. Barsalou, L.W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577-609–60. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X99252144.
  2. Chronicle, E. P., MacGregor, J. N., & Ormerod, T. C. (2004). What Makes an Insight Problem? The Roles of Heuristics, Goal Conception, and Solution Recoding in Knowledge-Lean Problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(1), 14–27. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.14.
  3. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58, 270. doi : 10.1037/h0093599.
  4. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X97470012.
  5. Kershaw, T., & Ohlsson, S. (2004). Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: The case of nine-dot problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(1), 3–13. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.3.
  6. Knoblich, G., & Ohlsson, S. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1534. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1534.
  7. Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., & Raney, G. E. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 29(7), 1000–9. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11820744.
  8. Lung, C.-T., & Dominowski, R. L. (1985). Effects of Strategy Instructions and Practice on Nine-Dot Problem Solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 804–811. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.11.1-4.804.
  9. MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., & Chronicle, E. P. (2001). Information Processing and Insight: A Process Model of Performance on the Nine-Dot and Related Problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27(1), 176–201. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.27.1.176.
  10. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Human Problem Solving. Contemporary Sociology, 2(2), 169. doi: 10.2307/2063712.
  11. Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep Learning. How the mind overrides experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In M. T. Keane & K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of thinking (pp. 1–44). New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
  13. Ohlsson, S. (1984a). Restructuring revisited. I. Summary and critique of the Gestalt theory of problem solving. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 65–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.1984.tb01001.x.
  14. Ohlsson, S. (1984b). Restructuring revisited. II. An information processing theory of restructuring and insight. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25(2), 117–129. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.1984.tb01005.x.
  15. Ormerod, T. C., MacGregor, J. N., & Chronicle, E. P. (2002). Dynamics and constraints in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 791–799. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.791.
  16. Seifert, C.M., Meyer, D.E., Davidson, N., Patalano, A.L., & Yaniv, I. (2013) Demystification of cognitive insight: Opportunistic assimilation and the prepared-mind perspective. In R.J. Sternberg, J.E. Davidson (Eds.). The nature of insight. New York: Cambridge University Press, 65-124.
  17. Spiridonov, V. F., & Lifanova, S. S. (2013). Insight and Mental Operators: Are Step-by-Step Solutions of Insight Tasks Possible?. Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics, 10(3), 54-63. (in Russ.).
  18. Thomas, L. E., & Lleras, A. (2009). Swinging into thought: directed movement guides insight in problem solving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 719–723. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.4.719.
  19. Vladimirov, I. Yu., Korovkin, S. Yu., Lebed', A. A., Savinova, A. D., & Chistopol'skaya, A. V. (2016). Executive control and intuition: interaction at different stages of creative decision. Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal, 37(1), 48–60.
  20. Weisberg, R. W., & Alba, J. W. (1981). An Examination of the Alleged Role of “Fixation” in the Solution of Several “Insight” Problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(2), 169–192. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.110.2.169
  21. Weller, A., Villejoubert, G., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (2011). Interactive insight problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 17(4), 424–439. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2011.629081.
  22. Werner, K., & Raab, M. (2013). Moving to solution. Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 403–9. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000213.
  23. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. doi: 10.3758/BF03196322.
  24. Zwaan, R. A. (1999). Embodied cognition, perceptual symbols, and situation models. Discourse Processes, 28(1), 81–88. doi: 10.1080/01638539909545070.

Copyright (c) 2017 Loginov N.I., Spiridonov V.F., Mezentsev O.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies