cognitive and neural mechanisms of insightful solutions

Cognitive and neural mechanisms of insightful solutions

Mark Jung-Beeman, Northwestern University

In collaboration with:

John Kounios, Ed Bowden, Karuna Subramaniam, Ezra Wegbreit

Thanks to:

Todd Parrish, Paul Reber, Jason Haberman, Zoe Clancy, Jennifer Frymaire, and many others….

Left Hemisphere Relatively fine semantic codingGood for strong activation, rapid selection, categorizationMight miss distant associations

Right Hemisphere Relatively coarse semantic codingWeak, diffuse activation, not easily accessible (unconscious?)Better able to detect semantic overlap from distant associations

Insight as creative problem solving

Generally considered a type of creative thought

Requires cognitive flexibility (restructuring)

Divergent thinking (plus convergent)

Correlated with other creative processes

distinct marker ~ instance of creative thinking

Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight

Objective measure of subjective experience

Covert measure / Access to unconscious processing

Brain structures, type of activity can inform theories of cognitive processing

Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight

Objective measure of subjective experience

Covert measure / Access to unconscious processing

Brain structures, type of activity can inform theories of cognitive processing

Methodological Constraints

• Need many trials for adequate signal:: noise

• Need proper control condition

Short insight-like problems, based on the

RAT Compound Remote Associate Problems Bowden & Jung Beeman, 1998

Remote Associates Test: RAT (Mednick, 1962)

child

scanbirdsame strike

tennis

Short insight-like problems, based on the

RAT Compound Remote Associate Problems Bowden & Jung Beeman, 1998

Remote Associates Test: RAT (Mednick, 1962)

child

scanbirdsame strike

tennis

BRAINMATCH

RAT CRAP

More flexibility LessUnknown type of association CompoundHarder Easier

Solve more analytic possible

(still insight>analytic)

Unconscious processing?Behavioral methods testing solution activation

• Primary task: try to solve problems

• After time limit (or after solving), target word appears

– Solution or unrelated word (priming?)

– lvf-RH or rvf-LH

Right visual field

Left Hemisphere Right Hemisphere

Left visual field

time

box

free

+ lunch

lunch time

lunch box

free lunch

Conclusions from behavioral studies

of insight-like problem solving • Solution priming for unsolved problems

– “Unconscious” solution activation prior to solving

– Especially in RH (lvf)

• RH solution activation useful for recognizing solutions

– Faster solution decisions for lvf-RH than rvf-LH!

• More priming, faster recognition with insight > analytic

– Especially in RH (lvf)

What happens during solving?

Our behavioral methods require presenting solution

* FMRI or EEG allow covert measure during solving

* Neural correlates of insight– Really sudden?

Neural correlates during solving?

Area of activation helps constrain cognitive theories

• Is insight really different?

• How?

– Semantic/lexical integration - making new connections: RH anterior temporal lobe

– Cognitive control, switching: ACC? DLPFC?

Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight:Methodological Constraints

Controlling for difficulty AND general strategies, cognitive processes

• Analytic solving - high WM demand

• Different processes, nothing to do with insight

Event-related neuroimaging design(solution-locked potentials)

• Insight solutions versus noninsight solutions

• Very “tight” comparison

– Not reveal whole network of problem solving

– Highlights just components that are uniquely engaged (emphasized) for insight solutions

Jittered TimesCRA Trial+

2-8s

Preparationperiod

0-30s

Problem onset

ToothHeartPotato

Solution?

2s

Analyticor

Insight?

2s

Variable solving time

Eureka! or Aha! experience

• Solution appears sudden and obvious

• As soon as you think of solution, you “just know” it works for all three words

– Comes as a whole, not part by part

• (vs strategic, step-by-step testing, etc)


2-8s

Preparationperiod

0-30s

Problem onset

ToothHeartPotato

Solution?

2s

Analyticor

Insight?

2s


Replication from converging methods

Electroencephalography (EEG)

–Parallel & simultaneous experiment, different subs

–Better temporal resolution

–Type of activity informative

Gamma band insight effects

Replication from converging methods

Replication with fMRI

• more subs

• better scanning

• better design to separate sequential processes

• shorter solving time (15s)

Neural correlates of insight solutions

Right middle/superior temporal lobe• lexical / semantic integration of distant relations - making new connections

Also: Hippocampus/ parahippocampal gyrus

• distinct memory retrieval

Posterior cingulate cortex • visual attention

L

R

p < .0025 p < .001

Neural correlates of insight solutions

Dorsal anterior cingulate/ medial frontal gyrus(BA 24, 32, 9)Cognitive control:

• Detecting competing “activations” (solution candidates), i.e., something to switch attention to

L

R

p < .0025 p < .001

What factors influence ability to achieve insight solutions?

Fluctuations in attention (Kounios)

Individual differences (Kounios)

What factors influence ability to achieve insight solutions?

Fluctuations in attention (Kounios)

Individual differences, resting state (Kounios)

Mood (affect) - assessed or induced

Attention state - assessed or induced

Positive Affect facilitates insight

• Solving RAT probs, medical diagnoses, other (Isen, many papers)

• Solving RAT problems & global attention (Anderson et al., 2006)

• Work place diaries (Amabile, 2005)

How? Specifically facilitate insight solving?Facilitate use of analytic strategy on “insight problems”?

“Activate” right hemisphere?Modulate cognitive control, interacting w/ other processes

Positive affect modulates attention

– Biases a global or broader focus of attention? 1

– Facilitates integrating distant elements of problems? 2

– Facilitates switching between solving strategies, 3

or between global and local attention?

– Facilitates detecting competing solution candidates? 4

1 Gasper et al, 2002, Anderson et al. 2006

2 Fedemeier et al, 2001

3 Dreisbach et al, 2004

4 Baumann & Kuhl., 2005

Positive Affect enhances overall solutions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Low PA-NA High PA-NA

Positive Affect (defined by PA-NA)

Number Solved

Behavioral Results - I

* * p < .05

Positive Affect by Insight Interaction

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Low PA-NA Middle PA-NA High PA-NA

Positive Affect (defined by PA-NA)

Number Solved

Noninsight

Insight

* **

* p < .05

Behavioral Results - I

Behavioral Summary

Subjects higher in positive mood

• solve more (insight-like) problems overall• solve more with insight

Subjects higher in anxiety • solve fewer problems with insight

Neuroimaging Evidence

Does positive affect alter approach to problem (vs reaction to it?)

Multiple analyses examining relation between positive mood, insight solving, insight preparation, and overall preparation in brain activity

Anatomical overlap across all analyses?


2-8s

PreparationPeriod

0-15s

Problem onset

ToothHeartPotato

Solution?

2s

Analyticalor

Insight?

2s


Analysis I : Signal increased during prep in ACC, PCC (some)ONLY prep activity in ACC increased with positive affect across all 27 subs

r = 0.41, p<.05

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0

Positive Mood (PA-NA )

% signal change in ACC

at preparation

Preparatory activity in ACC (t = 4.5, v = 2940 mm)

Preparatory activity within the dorsal ACC

-0.06-0.04-0.02

00.020.040.060.080.1

0.120.14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TRs

% signal change

Neuroimaging Summary: Convergent AnalysisOnly ACC region showed functional overlap (black) with:

positive affect states (red) active preparatory region (blue)insight solution-related effect (yellow)

ACC: (i) = (preparatory activity) + (insight effect)

(ii) = (preparatory activity) + (positive affect)

(iii) = (preparatory activity) + (positive affect) + (insight effect)

Conclusions from assessing Affect

Positive affect alters preparatory activity in the ACC to predispose solving with insight by:

(i) enhancing detection of competing alternatives?

(ii) enhancing predisposition to switch b/w strategies?

(iii) enhancing selection?

Inducing pos affect & anxiety, w/in subs

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Positive MI Neutral MI Anxious MI

Mood Induction Condition

Number Solved

Insight Number

Non-Insight Number

* p < .05

*

*

Attention and insight

• ACC part of attention & cognitive control

• Distractibility and insight, creativity

• Less “latent inhibition” - ability to suppress

• Global attention, global processing

• Pos mood -> inc’d insight & inc’d attentional breadth

Attention and insight

• Attention battery: 20 tasks, 4 correlated

• Rapid Identification - more solved, more insight

• Central focus - less insight

• Global motion - more solved

• Multiple object (ball) tracking

Inducing attention for insight

• Set 1 CRA problems

• all 4 attention tasks,

- Central Focus --> Rapid ID (less to more insight)

• Set 2 CRA problmes

Correlations?

Changes in performance



• 1 attention tasks X 4 groups- Central Focus- Rapid ID - Ball tracking- Global motion


Changes in performance?


Changes in performance?

• Central Focus- solving, analytic, insight

• Rapid ID - solving, analytic, insight

• Ball tracking & Global motion - ns diffs

ConclusionsInsight emphasizes different cognitive and neural components than

does analytic processing

• Right aSTG - integrate distant elements• ACC readiness to detect/switch to competing candidates• overall more top-down approach; disengage from input

Mood and attentional states modulate component processes conducive to insight

• Pos affect enhances, anxiety impedes:• ACC, readiness to detect competing candidates

- which are more likely to be (weakly) active in RH

ConclusionsInsight emphasizes different cognitive and neural components than

does analytic processing

• Right aSTG - integrate distant elements• ACC readiness to detect/switch to competing candidates• overall more top-down approach; disengage from input

Mood and attentional states modulate component processes conducive to insight

• Pos affect enhances, anxiety impedes:• ACC, readiness to detect competing candidates

- which are more likely to be (weakly) active in RH

Neural evidence can be used to constrain and expand theories of insight & creative cognition

General vs specific mechanisms - Visual Aha!

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

L R Post Ant L R

Visual Aha! effect in RH anterior Mid Temporal Gyrus: FMRI signal for insight > noninsight recognition

L coronal R axial sagittal

p < .01, cluster > 500 mm3







L R Post Ant L R

Visual Aha! effect in RH Angular Gyrus: FMRI signal for insight > noninsight recognition


p < .01, cluster > 500 mm3 Also: RH Sup Frontal Gyrus







L R Post Ant L R

Visual Aha! effect in Bilateral M. Occipital Gyri: FMRI signal for NONinsight > insight recognition


p < .005, cluster > 500 mm3







Visual Aha! conclusions

NOT just for verbal problems

• Similarities - shared mechanisms (not “insight”, but…)

– Insight: top-down, cognitive control, integration

– RH: unconscious, weak but mutually constraining, integration

– Recognition comes as a whole, not part by part

– Noninsight: bottom-up (vis cortex)

General vs specific mechanisms - Visual Aha!

•



Visual Aha! conclusions

Some differences -

• Angular Gyrus somewhat surprising

– Non-canonical object recognition (Kosslyn et al)

– Simultaneous object (part) recognition?

• Simulagnosia

cognitive and neural mechanisms of insightful solutions

Documents

cognitive theories

solution priming

insight analyticespecially

distant associations

behavioral studies of

presenting solution

strong activation

diffuse activation