An “A-ha!” Moment: Creative Problem Solving with Insight and Analysis

Suddenly an individual has experienced an “A-ha!” moment, in which they find an answer to a problem or have this epiphany in which they determine the correct answer with confidence. However, when asked to describe the process of how the solution was deriven it can be quite difficult to explain, this can be explained through the concept of insight. By definition, insight is a sudden change in a formation or concept which often leads to the solution of a problem. Insights can have attributing qualities such as a burst of emotion, positive surprise or even realization. The field of neuroscience has made a progressive approach in conducting insight research to understand how individuals arrive to this eureka moment, specifically through applying neuroimaging and electrophysiological techniques.

In a series of studies led by John Kounios and Mark Beeman, it was found that different attention-related regions of the brain are activated when individuals solve problems analytically in comparison to solving problems with insight. To differentiate between the two, a series of challenging word problems were given to individuals to solve, who were immediately put in an fMRI scanner afterwards. Participants were presented with three words on a screen (ex. Crab, pine, sauce) and the idea was to form a forth common compound word (sauce) that could proceed or come prior to the word. Upon completion of each word problem, individuals were to report whether insight or analysis was used. The fMRI scans revealed that participants who experienced insight in problem solving, activated the anterior temporal lobe of the right hemisphere. Furthermore these individuals had a greater degree of answering correctly when problems were solved through insight, rather than analysis.

Kounios, Beeman and Salvi extended their hypothesis to induce insight into participants through the method of applying tDCS, in anticipation that insight would be drawn more quicker and easier. To put this into perspective, It was demonstrated that participants were able to solve more problems with applied tDCS, in comparison to none. These results became a primary factor in linking eye movements to cognitive processes of attention and cognitive control. This was further tested by using eye tracking to record eye movements during the process of solving word problems. These results marked the grounds of this theory that if visual attention decreases a sudden insight can emerge when problem solving.

A lead study in insight and creativity conducted by Bernardi Luft et.al had revealed that by suppressing activity in the area of the brain that is involved in planning and reasoning can increase an individual's ability to think creatively and problem solve. Similar to Kounios and Beemans study, an on-screen computer test was conducted in which individuals were presented with puzzles composed of matchsticks.

The idea behind the matchsticks was to produce an equation. This task proved to be difficult due to underlying fixed notions of mathematical principles that individuals have been exposed to and must stray away from during the experiment. Upon completion of 12 matchstick problems, tDCS was applied on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (located on the left side of the brain) and participants were split into three groups in which the puzzle was presented again. The “Sham” (i.e setup) group experienced current that was switched on and off with no stimulation, and the other groups either received positive or negative electrical stimulation.

It was evident that participants tend to perform better when receiving negative stimulation in comparison to being in a positive stimulation state or sham. The essence of Lufts study was to illustrate that by manipulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, one can accommodate new rules and engage in creative problem-solving tasks.

Overall both studies depict that by applying non-invasive techniques such as tDCS to certain regions of the brain, there is higher degree of performance in creatively solving problems and using insight approaches rather than analytical. Insight and problem solving studies are ongoing and with the aid of electrical stimulation the age of technological consciousness is expanding and building foundations of cognitive mapping for individuals to understand their creative abilities.

ARTICLE

Davis, Nicola. “Suppressing the Reasoning Part of the Brain Stimulates Creativity, Scientists Find.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 7 June 2017.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/07/thinking-caps-on-electrical-currents-boost-creative-problem-solving-study-finds

Insight: Planning and Problem Solving

Everyone is faced with complex problems and decisions that they must make everyday. There are two ways in which people can go about solving these problems. Problems may be solved analytically, through careful and tedious consideration, or they may be solved insightfully where the solution just pops into their brain. Oftentimes, people are more likely to respond with the solution that they reached analytically and not follow their insightful “gut” solution because they have carefully worked out one solution accounting for all potential variables, but the other just came seemingly out of nowhere. However, according to Dr. Carola Salvi’s talk, she explained how solutions that come via insight are correct 92% of the time and that they are “more correct than analytical solutions.” Nevertheless, insight has its limitations. The nature of insight is random itself and seems out of place, and therefore it is difficult to predict when solutions via insight will occur. According to research done at Drexel University, even “mood may also influence one’s brain state; in their study, a positive mood facilitated insightful solving, while an anxious mood enhanced analytical solving.” Individuals’ state of mind when attempting to find solutions can also play a large role in the very manner in which their brain is going to go about approaching and coming up with a solution to their issue. Inarguably, when an individual is faced with a complex problem and are also put on a deadline to solve this problem, there is a significant amount of pressure that that person is placed under. The very circumstance of having to solve complex problems creates a considerable amount of anxiety for the individuals and consequently the individual may be unable to creatively and insightfully resolve the problem.

The desire to solve a problem via insight is not only because the solution is more likely to be correct, but also because the brain region associated with solving problems via insight is the right hemisphere of the brain. The right hemisphere of the brain is known to be more subjective, thoughtful, and creative, whereas the left side is more detail oriented and calculated. In her talk, Dr. Carola Salvi discussed the prominent role that the right hemisphere of the brain played in insight. The essence of insight as being an “aha” or “eureka moment” directly supports the conclusion that the right hemisphere is being used because it is associated with being more thoughtful and abstruse. It is evident that individuals are more likely to seek solutions and thoughts via insight when given the task of solving certain problems. However, the limitations mentioned above with the effects of the state of mind regarding the likelihood of having an insight are essential to be accounted for when an individual desires to solve a problem insightfully.

Additionally, the research done at Drexel University highlighted the correlation between distant and future planning and insight. It was found that “individuals will form a more abstract mental representation of an event in the distant future than of an event in the near future. Because the near future is relatively proximal to the present, one has a more concrete idea of what to expect of events that occur in this time period. The distant future, on the other hand, requires more imagination.”  This relationship between future planning and insight is interesting because it demonstrates that insight is not limited to occurring only when faced with problems, but even planning future events utilizes insight.

Although it is impossible to control the brain function and ensure that a problem is solved either analytically of insightfully, the conditions in which the individuals is in play a significant role on the ability to solve problems via insights.  

References:

Truelove-Hill M, Erickson BA, Anderson J, Kossoyan M and Kounios J (2018) A Growth-Curve Analysis of the Effects of Future-Thought Priming on Insight and Analytical Problem-Solving. Front. Psychol. 9:1311. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01311

Kounios, John, and Mark Beeman. “The Aha! Moment: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 18, no. 4, Aug. 2009, pp. 210–216, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01638.x.

Boredom: The Key to Creativity

According to Time Magazine, the journal Academy of Management Discoveries recently published a study titled Why boredom might not be a bad thing after all that focuses on boredom and its relationship to creativity (Park). Despite being an extremely common emotion, boredom and its effects remain somewhat unclear. Prior knowledge on boredom predominantly surrounds boredom and its effects on increasing the prevalence of negative/risky behaviors. The researchers in this study, Park, Lim, and Oh, sought to study less obvious correlations to boredom, specifically the correlation of boredom and creativity.

Researchers used three different experiments to study the consequences of boredom. Study 1 found that being bored can increase the incidence of creative ideas. Researchers had the experimental group perform a boredom-inducing task (sorting beans by color) while the control group did not perform this task. Next, the researchers had all participants perform a task that required idea generation. Participants were asked to generate an excuse for being late that would not make someone look bad. The experimental group, who had previously completed the boring task, performed better in idea-generation both qualitatively and quantitatively. The creativity of the answers was ranked by random participants not connected to the study. Study 2 found that manipulations of boredom do not have effect on other negative behaviors associated with boredom. This is important in that boredom and creativity have a unique and positive relationship. Study 3, however, had interesting results. Park found that this higher individual increase in creativity was not found in everyone, only specific people that demonstrate “a high learning goal orientation, high need for cognition, high openness to experience, and high internal locus of control” (Park). Researchers believe that boredom induces a new, atypical way of thinking which leads to creativity in certain individuals.

The article from Time quotes Sandi Mann, a psychologist at University of Lancashire UK. Mann argues that we should embrace boredom because without the constant stimulation of the world, we will go inside our own head to recieve the stimulation we are so desperate for (Durchame). Right before insight, we undergo an active suppression of input by blinking slower and more frequently or avoid directly looking at the problem we are trying to solve (Salvi). We go into sort of an “offline mode” which is exactly what Mann describes.

This study is similar to the work done by Carola Salvi on insight. In her presentation, Salvi defined insight as an all at once problem solving phenomenon. Insight involves an unawareness of the steps taken to reach it. Another key characteristic of insight is people experience an insight have a high level of confidence in their answer (Salvi). When faced with a problem, insight and analysis are the two ways of solving the problem. Creativity falls into a similar category as insight in the scheme of problem solving. Salvi notes that insight comes to us when we are relaxed which means our visual cortex is lowered and our brain is in an alpha wave state just before insight occurs. These conditions are met right before falling asleep, in the bath, or even just lounging and relaxing. The stories of many famous insights met these conditions, for example, the insights of Isaac Newton and Archimedes. Mann suggests that “to tap into true boredom, pick an activity like walking a familiar route, swimming laps or even just sitting with your eyes closed” (Ducharme). All of these activities were ones similar to those mentioned in Salvi’s presentation. Salvi did not specifically speak on boredom in her talk, however, perhaps boredom is correlated with insight in addition to creativity.

References

Ducharme, Jamie. “Being Bored Can Be Good for You-If You Do It Right. Here's How.” Time,

Time, 4 Jan. 2019, time.com/5480002/benefits-of-boredom/

Park, G., Lim, BC., Oh, HS. (2018, July 26). Why boredom might not be a bad thing after all.

Academy of Management, Vol 0. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2017.0033

The Biomarkers Behind Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a degenerative neurological disease that targets and disrupts emotions, thought processes, and behavior throughout long periods of time for individuals. Researchers have tried to understand this disorder in the past by doing studies to understand the processes of this disease. In addition, to understand the underlying causes of the degradation that occurs. Currently, there is still much more information about schizophrenia that still needs to be understood. One particular study, Progressive Deterioration of Thalamic Nuclei Relates to Cortical Network Decline in Schizophrenia, by Lei Wang, determined specific areas of the brain where this degradation occurred. This study made it conceivable to acknowledge that there are a lot of aspects that concern this disease and they can be studied in order to help individuals that are struggling with the disease.

The thalamic and cortical regions of the brain are what helps to regulate emotional and cognitive functions. These areas are hindered in people that have schizophrenia. The study that was done compared certain thalamic and cortical nuclei in people without the disease to people that have it. This comparison in nuclei helped to determine how it relates to clinical symptoms and cognitive function. Abnormalities within the longitudinal thalamic regions of the brain were found to be related to degenerative disorders, such as schizophrenia. Abnormal shapes of the nuclei were found in specific subdivisions of the longitudinal thalamic regions. These subdivisions consisted of the mediodorsal, pulvinar, and anterior nuclei. Based on the behavioral phenotype of schizophrenia, researchers were able to determine that these three subdivisions would have continuous deterioration. The results also showed a difference in volume of the thalamic regions. They were a factor in comparing the brains of people with the disease and without the disease. Individuals with the disease had a larger loss in volume, especially in the bilateral mediodorsal nuclei and the anterior nuclei by surface deformation than in individuals without the disease.  This study helped to narrow down the aspects of schizophrenia so that later research can be done to futher the knowledge and understanding of schizophrenia.

A more recent study was done that focused on the genetic variants of schizophrenia. These specific genetic variants were found to play a major role in the development of disease. N-methyl-D-aspartate is an amino acid derivative which is fundamental in cognitive and behavioral function. Abnormalities found in NMDAR are strongly related to symptoms that are caused by schizophrenia due to the genetic variants that reduce the amino acid from functioning properly. The study focused on a computer program which predicted the results of genetic variants within three specific genes, GRIN1, GRIN2A, GRIN2B. FYN was known to control the functioning of NMDAR. The variants were compared to DNA sequencing that was normal with no abnormalities. It was found that those genes in excess were disturbing the natural function of NMDAR within individuals with schizophrenia. This comparison showed the predictability of specific variants that could change the amino acid sequence it coded for or even prevent gene expression resulting in disfunction. The results found were similar to other studies which showed a correlation between NMDAR functioning and schizophrenia patients in which NMDAR function was impaired and abnormal.

Both articles show that more research is being done to understand schizophrenia. Particular nuclei in regions of the brain are being targeted in this degenerative disease within the thalamic and cortical regions. Also, part of the deterioration is causing shape deformation in the brain because of loss of volume. In addition, the NMDAR amino acid contributes greatly in the knowledge and understanding of schizophrenia due to its disfunction which causes risks for diseases as such. With new research that is being brought to the light, researchers could be able to target all sources of the cause of deterioration and some day might be able to inhibit the degeneration of nuclei and/or reverse the affects of NMDAR disfunction so that individuals would be able to live a better life without the disease or the disease can be significantly induced.

University College London. (2019, January 18). Genetic variants implicated in development of schizophrenia. Retrieved February 28, 2019, from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190118083203.htm

How Eureka moments can help in new discoveries

Have you ever had a friend tell you a joke, and you don’t understand what it means, and suddenly while you’re doing something, it finally comes to you, “Aha! That’s what she/he meant” OR when you’re working on a crossword puzzle, and you finally get the missing word, or when you’re stuck on solving an equation, and the solution finally comes to you. All of these sudden realizations or solutions that appear to come to us out of nowhere are referred to as the Eureka moments or our “Aha!” moments. More scientifically, this is called Insight, which is a very new and prospering field of study in Neuroscience.

In the talk given by Dr. Carola Salvi on Insight, she explained how her research helps us understand Insight. She explains how the brain helps us achieve those Eureka moments, which parts of our brain are active during those Eureka moments, and she also explains how reliable these Eureka moments are.  Dr. Salvi approached testing insight in two different ways. First, she tried to understand insight by providing her subjects with problems, to see which areas of the brain were more active while solving with insight. The second part to her study was, she stimulated those areas of the brain while presenting the subjects with Insight problems to see how they would respond. She made the brain the Independent variable in this case and their response (insight) as the dependent variable. With both parts, she discovered that the right temporal lobe is more active during the time insight is taking place in a person’s brain. Dr. Salvi was also able to explain that some of our Insights or Eureka moments that occur are majority of the times accurate. Our brain works in a way that those sudden realizations that we get on a solution can often times be the right idea.

In the New York Times article, “Eureka? Yes, Eureka!” Mark Zuckerberg warns graduate students not to believe the Hollywood belief of how a single Eureka moment can lead to groundbreaking discoveries, he refers to this idea “as ‘a dangerous lie’ that discourages real creativity.” This not only contradicts the talk that was given in class by Dr. Carola Salvi, it also contradicts many of the other research done by other scientists. Mark Zuckerberg’s statement contradicts history as well, which has continued to show us that the most brilliant ideas and discoveries were made through single Eureka moments. For example, the article discusses Otto Loewi and his realization about how nerve cells communicate with one another which led to his discovery of Neurotransmitters, and this was all because Otto Loewi had an insight or a Eureka moment where he realized this. The article also supports how Eureka-style insights don’t come to us out of nowhere, they happen because our brain makes connections between things that we already know; some of those connections can be new and root from the things we already know. With this knowledge, it makes sense that our eureka moments can be accurate, as our brain is making these connection about knowledge that we already have.

This information about insight can help us in future research, as insight helps us make these important connections in our brain that help us to think to our full potential. I think one way this can help us in the future is if we can make a pharmacological drug that enhances insight and creates a lot more “aha!” moments in our brains, that way we’ll be able to think to our full potential, and not only understand but also make connections between ideas faster.

Kounios, John. “Eureka? Yes, Eureka!” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 June 2017,www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/eureka-yes-eureka.html.