The Creative State of Mind

Creativity is an extremely subjective process, unique to each individual’s abilities. While it is known that some individuals are capable of being more creative than others, it is not known which mechanisms control this process. The ignorance that comes along with this discipline of neuroscience can be seen as a challenge for companies/businesses where employees are expected to be inventive moguls, capable of consistently creating the newest, best thing.

Dr. Carolina Salvi’s research proposes a solution to such concerns. In her research, Dr. Salvi examines the two different methods of creative thinking: insight and analysis. Insight is commonly seen as the “aha” or “eureka” moment one has when a solution to a problem is found. When a solution is found through this method, it appears to the individual that the solution came to them all at once, with no conscious knowledge of processing. However, it has been proven that the process of problem solving through insight is largely unconscious. Consciousness is only allowed for once a solution has been found. Contrastingly, problem solving via analysis is a step by step process that is a continuous approach towards a solution, and also requires trial and error.

In comparing the two ways of thinking, Dr. Salvi investigated not only how these mechanisms work but also questioned whether you are more correct when you have an insight versus solving a problem via analysis. Results showed that solutions through insight were 92% more correct than by analysis. Additionally, Dr. Salvi uncovered that when giving participants less time to solve a problem, insights are less likely to occur. Rather, when in a time crunch, analysis is the primary technique used, and this answer is oftentimes incorrect. These results suggest that in order to solve a problem through insight, and have a higher likeliness of being correct, a calm and relaxed state of mind must be achieved.

A study by Remi Radel at the University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France found results in contrast to those by Dr. Salvi. More specifically, the findings suggest that mental exhaustion, caused by overworking oneself, can lead to creativity. In this study, participants performed a computerized task that required vigorous attention -- finding the direction of a center arrow by ignoring the directions of surrounding arrows. This task was repeated by participants for roughly 2000 trials. After the participants completed all of the trials, their creativity in verbal tests was measured. Participants were presented with a “priming word,” followed by a “target word,” and their ability to connect unrelated words was measured. In comparison to control participants, that did not complete as many trials and were not as overworked, experimental participants were found to be more creative. This creativity was induced by Dr. Radel’s ability to exhaust a participants’ inhibition -- the brain’s ability to filter out unwanted information unconsciously. This inhibition is typically considered to be essential for everyday tasks such as problem solving and selective attention, while also halting creativity. According to Dr. Radel’s results, once this inhibition is repressed, primarily through mental exhaustion, the mind is able to utilize creative thinking. 

Researchers have come to different conclusions regarding the process of creative thinking. Understanding this task will require further investigation. Such exploration can potentially shape the way that people think about the creative process.

References:

Kannan, M. (2015, June 09). Overworking Your Brain Can Spark Ideas. Retrieved February 28, 2019, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/overworking-your-brain-can-spark-ideas/

Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2014). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight. The Annual Review of Psychology,56, 71-93. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115154

Potential Biomarkers for Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is among a large array of psychological disorders that are just that – psychological. Specifically, researchers struggle to find biological factors, or biomarkers, that are consistent across patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. Associative biomarkers allow doctors to diagnose a patient more discerningly and accurately. This increased accuracy leads to better patient treatment and to the development of a causal cure. But again, these biomarkers are scarce, especially in psychological disorders.

However, two potential biomarkers have recently been reported. The first is a genetic correlation between the C₄ gene and synaptic pruning published by Beth Stevens, Steve McCarroll and their colleagues at Harvard Medical School and its Broad Institute’s Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research. During human brain development, humans undergo a process called synaptic pruning in which the brain degrades certain neural connections. The C₄ gene was specifically studied due to a preliminary human genome inquiry. C₄ is located on chromosome six in an area associated with the immune system. Researchers found that increased C₄ activity correlates to schizophrenic patients. To experimentally test this correlation, researchers manipulated the genes in mice. From these manipulations, they saw that when the C₄ gene is deleted, synaptic pruning goes wrong, and when C₄  activity increases, synaptic pruning increases as well. From these observations, researchers concluded that the C₄ gene acts to increase the tagging of neural connections to be pruned, resulting in detrimental deletion. So, it is speculated that because people with schizophrenia show increased C₄ activity, which correlates to increased synaptic pruning, humans with schizophrenia experience this increased pruning and incorrect development. In addition, human’s synaptic pruning occurs during adolescence, which is also when schizophrenic symptoms start to appear. Therefore, C₄’s activity level is a potential biomarker for schizophrenia.

Another possible biomarker for schizophrenia is suggested by Dr. Lei Wang and his colleagues at Northwestern’s Medical School. In his presentation, “Deep Brain Structural Shape as Biomarkers for Neuropsychiatric Disorders,” Wang discussed four deep brain structures: the hippocampus, the amygdala, the thalamus, and the basal ganglia including its subdivisions. In connection to schizophrenia, he specifically discussed deceased gray matter in the thalamic nuclei and basal ganglia due to a decreased number of NADPH-d neurons. With these aspects in mind, Wang researched the shape and volume differences of these deep brain structures in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. He reported that the hippocampus, thalamus, and basal ganglia in schizophrenic patients had significantly different shapes compared to controls. However, he found no significant difference in the volume of these areas. In addition, Wang analyzed correlations of these deformed shapes with participants’ non-psychotic siblings. He found a significant correlation between the siblings’ deep brain structure shapes compared to unrelated and control participants. Wang hesitated to say that these structure deformities are consistent biomarkers for schizophrenia but he concluded that these deformities allude to schizophrenia possibly being a disorder of “network disorganization” (Wang, 2019). 

Perhaps, Wang’s idea of “network disorganization” directly connects to Stevens and McCarroll’s idea of amplified synaptic pruning. The C₄  activity increases, causing excessive tagging for synaptic pruning, in which an excessive amount of neural connections are eliminated, resulting in a disorganized neural network.

Overall, research indicates that there is something different about a person with schizophrenia’s brain compared to the normal developed population. Yet schizophrenic associative biological factors are lacking. Although the researchers mentioned did not state that their findings are definite schizophrenic biomarkers, their findings provide hopeful conclusions and areas for future research. Perhaps even a schizophrenic causal cure will be developed, targeting the initial activity of the C₄ gene and effectively inhibiting corrupt synaptic pruning and all of its downstream effects.

References:

Carey, Benedict. “Scientists Move Closer to Understanding Schizophrenia's Cause.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Jan. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/health/schizophrenia-cause-synaptic-pruning-brain-psychiatry.html.

Rettner, Rachael. “‘Schizophrenia Gene’ Discovery Sheds Light on Possible Cause.” Scientific American, LiveScience, 28 Jan. 2016,  www.scientificamerican.com/article/schizophrenia-gene-discovery-sheds-light-on-possible-cause/.

Wang, Lei Dr. “Deep Brain Structural Shape as Biomarkers for Neuropsychiatric Disorders.” Loyola University Chicago Neuroscience Seminar. 5 Feb. 2019, Chicago, Loyola University Chicago.

Gender Differences in Problem-Solving

Problem solving is a necessary part of human life. In her talk, Dr. Salvi explains that there are two distinct methods when one searches for the solution to a certain problem. She provides an example of a problem given to her participants where they are shown three words: tooth, heart and potato. Participants are then to provide the solution to these sets of words. Her study shows that participants solve such a problem by either analyzing or through insight. When one approaches the problem in a “step by step” manner, they are exemplifying the analysis approach. Such a method involves a continuous and gradual approach towards the solution. A participant may also be unaware of the steps but provide the correct answer of “sweet” nonetheless. This method is known as insight or an “aha moment”. Insight involves the filtering of incoming information, whereas analysis is the elaboration of external information. 

            A recent study conducted by the University of Eastern Finland showed that “boys with good motor skills are better problem-solvers than their less skillful peers”. The study found no such correlation in girls nor a correlation between physical fitness and problem solving. Researchers conducted a baseline motor and cognitive skills and followed up on the 6-8-year old’s for a two year span. The study predicts that the same correlation may not have been found in girls due to “biological or sociocultural differences between boys and girl”. 

            The study conducted by Dr. Salvi and the one by the University of Eastern Finland show that there are cognitive overlaps in problem solving as well as gender differences. In her research, Dr. Salvi also studied the ways in which confidence impacts insight as well as timing pressures. Her study found that people who solve problems through insight tend to feel excited and confident in their answers. Insight has therefore been linked to accuracy. Her research found that participants who have insight provide accurate answers to the problems. Dr. Salvi also explains that students are more likely to make errors at the end of an exam or solution. This increase in error is due to time constraints and an analysis of the problem rather than the use of insight. Therefore, insight is shown to not occur when one is running out of time. This relates to the prediction between problem solving in boys and girls mentioned in the study conducted by the University of Eastern Finland. Boys may be more confident in their problem-solving capabilities and may therefore be better skilled at accurately reaching correct solutions. A difference between the two studies are Dr. Salvi’s study of risk and problem-solving. Dr. Salvi has found that females are better at solving problems when under risk. This study may also provide an answer to the lack of difference between motor skill and problem solving in girls found by the University of Eastern Finland. Another explanation for girls’ performance may be due to the problems they solved not to be risk involved.

           Future studies may want to combine the study conducted by Dr. Salvi and the one by the University of Eastern Finland and study participants’ problem-solving skills in relation to motor skills, time constraints, risk, and other biological factors. Both of these studies are able to provide tangible evidence as to the causes of problem-solving differences. Such research may one day help people improve such cognitive skills as well as impact the way children are taught to solve problems.

Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2009). The Aha! Moment: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight.            

           Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), 210-    216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 

           8721.2009.01638.x

University of Eastern Finland. (2018, December 17). Boys with good motor skills excel at            

           problem-solving, too. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 23, 2019 from          

           www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181217105613.htm

Problem-Solving Insights vs. Existential Epiphanies

There are two ways that we typically solve problems: analysis and insight. Analysis refers to the step-by-step, continuous processing of information towards a solution. A person may try different solutions until they finally arrive at the correct one, or they may not figure out a plausible answer at all. Insight, however, is the famous “Aha!” moment, and the processing of information during insight occurs all at once; a person is unaware of the steps he or she took to solve the problem presented. Surprisingly, the answers that we arrive at through insight are often the correct one. Solutions found by insight are often accompanied by confidence and result in 92% accuracy.

Research centered around insight has found that right hemisphere activation of the brain is associated with insight solving. Interestingly, researchers were able to prime subjects to solve a problem through insight by positioning solution word probes in the left visual field so that the right hemisphere would be directly activated first. The right hemisphere correlates with coarse semantic coding, which is particularly important for insight because as a word’s meaning is less specified, the more likely it is for the brain to connect that word to other words or concepts (Kounios and Beeman 77). Through a combination of EEG and fMRI testing, researchers found that at the exact moment that people solve problems by insight, there is high frequency (gamma-band) activity at the right temporal lobe and blood flow change in the right anterior superior temporal gyrus (78). Right before the spurt of gamma-band EEG activity during an insight, there was a surge of alpha-band EEG activity over the right occipital cortex (79), indicating that the brain attempts to “reduce noise from distracting inputs to facilitate retrieval of the weakly and unconsciously activated solution represented in the right temporal lobe” (80). 

In Bruce Grierson’s “Eureka!”, he describes that insight does not occur only during problem-solving; we can have an insight that is deeply personal or even existential. Whether it is to solve a problem, to come up with a creative idea, or to suddenly decide to change your life considerably, insight allows us to realize something that we were blind to before. Grierson refers to William Miller’s book Quantum Change, in which Miller interviewed 55 people who had insights, specifically ones in which the person experienced a sudden realization that led to life transformations. These epiphanies included the decision to divorce one’s spouse, to quit daily habits such as smoking or gambling, or to spontaneously quit a job. What he found was that most people who had these epiphanies were doing insignificant, everyday activities such as watching TV, lying in bed, or getting ready to shower. Dr. Salvi also discussed this concept of the idle brain being more prone to having an insight. 

The similarities between problem-solving insights and epiphanies leads some researchers to believe that the two are not vastly different from one another. Miller believes otherwise for several reasons. Miller found a shocking similarity among his subjects of a feeling of something foreign or mystical entering the minds of those who experienced quantum change, as well as a feeling that they had made an irreversible decision and could not turn back. Quantum change often had a moral dimension to the insight that led to a major life change. The subjects who Miller tested felt extraordinary internal pressure to change the way they were living prior to their insight. These characteristics are not seen during small “aha” moments that allow us to solve problems. This leads Miller to believe that problem-solving insights and epiphany insights cannot be the same and must involve activation of different parts of the brain or at least cause different connections to be made in the brain. However, there is still no proof that an existential epiphany is any different from a small insight.

Sources:

Grierson, Bruce. “Eureka!” Psychology Today, 9 Mar. 2015, www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201503/eureka.

Kounios, John, and Mark Beeman. “The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight.” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 65, no. 1, 2014, pp. 71–93., doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115154.

Slaves to our own Minds

Slaves to our own Minds

By: Jacob Love

Imagine a world where nearly every choice is made for you, before you even have a real concept of what you are deciding. You are almost like a puppet on strings, and the only time you get to make a decision is when the strings malfunction. It turns out this might be the world we live in, with the unconscious mind as the puppeteer.

An article that ran late last year in Scientific American claimed that not only does the unconscious mind play an enormous role in everyday life, it is the brains controller. The article by Steve Ayan (2018) entitled “The Brain’s Autopilot Mechanism Steers Consciousness,” argues that the brain’s default state is autopilot, requiring no input from consciousness to run at all and avoiding conscious decision making whenever possible. The theory is called “The Predictive Mind,” and essentially says that the subconscious predicts and executes virtually every task, with the conscious mind intervening only when the predictions do not pan out. Ayan explains: “if someone throws you a ball you do not have to be consciously aware of the ball's trajectory in order to catch it... Conscious processing would become engaged, however, if the ball took a sudden right-angle turn.” Consciousness is really only necessary to explain the unexpected.

While it may be unsettling to think that we are but puppets subject to the whim of our subconscious processes, it is not hard to imagine useful examples of this in everyday life: if you make any regular commute you may often find yourself at your destination without having any knowledge of the journey. All the decisions to turn at the right places and stopping to avoid collisions is handled seamlessly without any conscious decision making, which is great so long as consciousness doesn’t interfere. This is where Dr. Brian Sweis comes in.

Dr. Sweis’s (et. al. 2018) article “Sensitivity to ‘sunkcosts’ in mice, rats, and humans” in the journal Science demonstrates that across species animals consider invested time in decision making. For example, if you go to a restaurant and are waiting to be seated after half an hour you are less likely to leave then if you had waited only ten minutes. This valuing of spent time is part of the “sunk cost fallacy,” and it may not be intrinsically surprising, but Sweis also found that this happens almost exclusively after the initial decision is made. In the restaurant example, if you spent an hour deciding if you want to go to a restaurant or not you are no more likely to go there then if you decided right away.

So, what does this have to do with consciousness? I would argue that the initial decision is generally unconscious. The outcomes are predicted based on known information and an initial decision is made without regard to investment, which aligns it with the tasks handled unconsciously; however, after the decision has been made and some time has been invested without an apparent reward consciousness kicks in trying to explain why the reward has yet to be presented despite the investment. In a somewhat circular logic, we often convince ourselves that the reward is better because of the investment; which, in terms of the current model, seems to be an attribute of the conscious mind.

The purpose of the conscious mind seems to be to explain the unexpected; but just as Ayan argues, it does not seem to be particularly efficient. Indeed, it is possible conscious thought is actively disrupting our abilities to make informed decisions. So, despite the disturbing imagery, having your own puppet-master might not be such a bad thing after all.

The "Aha" Moment

We encounter insight everyday in our lives. Not just when we are trying to find a solution to a specific problem, but maybe when we are trying to solve a puzzle, a math problem, or even trying to figure out a joke. That split second when we say: “OH!” or “I get it now” or “Aha!”, is precisely when we have that brief moment of understanding. Researchers are using tools like fMRI imaging systems and EEG’s to determine what spikes these sudden moments of intellectual comprehension that we have, within split seconds of encountering a problem. Jokes are perfect examples of how we are able to understand insight. Some even say that, “comedians are master psychologists,” due to the fact that they are able to appeal to the general population by giving just partial information waiting for the people to actually tie these pieces together and comprehend the joke. In a Psychology Today Article, Malcolm Gladwell interviewed Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist, and they discussed which people offered the most amount of insight. Grant explained that comedians are in fact one of the few people who can actually appeal to people when it comes to brief moments of mutually understanding the joke as well as how they manage to not make people feel uncomfortable. Jokes resonate with what people see in the world. Therefore, in comparison to psychology, he gives the incredible similarity between psychologists and comedians. Psychologists are always trying to prove a hypothesis through societies observations and how they interpret the world. They eventually form conclusions in order to confirm their preexisting theories. He argued that comedians also go through this when they try to come up with a joke, when people laugh and understand it, they’ve hit the place where humans show that specific, “aha! moment”.  So how does that moment of insight occur in that specific moment? In the article by John Kounios and Mark Beeman, they revealed that insight-related coarse semantic coding occurs in the right hemisphere internally focused before solving and during problem solving. The problem solving in this case, is understanding the joke. The right hemisphere is more centered in insight-problem solving, rather than analytical problem solving shown in the left hemisphere. Insight related problems are correlated with fMRI and EEG systems, because the fMRI has excellent spatial resolution while the EEG lacks this but contributes in excellent temporal resolution. When people solve problems through insight, EEG showed a high frequency in activity over the right temporal lobe. The fMRI showed a change in blood flow in the right anterior superior temporal gyrus. Dr. Carola Salvi, from Northwestern University, and her research based at the Shirley Ryan Abilitylab, said that the average insight occurs at about 300 milliseconds on average. Salvi also conducted various experiments using different visual puzzles, such as Rebus Puzzles, Anagrams, and CRA tests. During these tests, it was demonstrated that insight occurs during the first few seconds if presented with a time limit. However, during CRA tests, faster recognition of the answer when the tests was presented to the left hemisphere. It gets processed in the right hemisphere first and it is more involved due to the creativity variable. One of her experiments also shows that before we have the moment of insight our pupils dilate, and during those “creativity,” tests participants press the button that they have solved the problems one second before. It was concluded that after a specific amount of time passes, if the person has not experienced insight to solve those problems, then it is highly difficult for them to receive it in the period of time given. Errors increase in percentage in the last 5 seconds of the time frame, those last five seconds are commonly known as the guessing area. If we compare this to an actual environment, where jokes are simply stated and time is not controlled, it relates to how timing in CRA tests actually manifest themselves in the actual world. We only have specific amount of time to “get-the-joke,” and then switching to another topic, and if do not understand the meaning of the joke in that specific interval, then we may not get it, ever - because we might end up forgetting about it. Insight is interconnected to the everything we are surrounded by, including jokes. Through psychology, we can comprehend how we comprehend jokes.

References:

Kommers, Cody. “Why Comedians Are Actually Master Psychologists.” Psychology Today,

Sussex Publishers, 2018, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/friendly-interest/201806/why-comedians-are-actually-master-psychologists.

Kounios, John, and Mark Beeman. "The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight." Annual Reviews,

2014. Annual Review of Psychology, doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115154

       Accessed 23 Feb. 2019.

The Impact We Can Make on Episodic Memory

Have you ever experienced trying to recall a certain event in your life? It may have been a special event like a specific birthday or something less ideal such as robbery and an investigator is questioning you to give an accurate description of what happened. What you are trying to access is called your episodic memory. Episodic memory consists of memories of specific events and experiences that are saved into your brain in a serial way. By the serial way, I mean that they are in chronological order. That is why when you watch crime shows on television, investigators always ask you to retrace your steps or to close your eyes to help you imagine what you were doing during a specific event. They are trying to help you access your episodic memory so that you can be able to recall what happened during that stressful event.  

In a New York Times article about retaining memory, the author Henry Alford speaks about how memory is fleeting and there are various methods that he uses to strengthen his memory. One task he suggests is to make rhymes and stories about the things we are trying to remember. This task that aids recall is similar to the investigator asking questions in a crime scene. They are all serial questions. Alford speaks about using a story to help remember a string of words. He sets up a particular setting and places the list of words in that setting so that they show up one right after another. In that case, he is able to remember what is going on and recall it afterward.

In regards to more scientific research, Jelena Radulovic from Northwestern University has been studying the projections in the brain that are associated with the transportation of signals from one part of the brain, dorsal hippocampus(DH), to other parts such as the retrosplenial cortex(RSC).In her studies, she attempted to explain more about the episodic memory and its retrieval in regards to stress-related memories. Her team was able to use contextual fear conditioning in animal models to understand which projections were involved in the recall from the fear conditioning. What they came up with was that if the pathway between the DH and RSC. What they found was that vGlut1 and vGlut2 were glutaminergic neurons that connected these regions. What was even more interesting what that vGlut1 had more of an impact on memory than vGlut2 and was silenced by DREADD. DREDD has a specific ability to specifically silence receptors and prevent previously encoded memories. All in all, this research aims to be used to help treat people who have PTSD as well as people who struggle with memory deficits. From their research, they were able to distinguish that episodic memory is encoded through feedforward inhibition of the vGlut1 neurons.

Not only did the researchers find the connection between the DH- RSC important for memory, but they also were able to figure out how glutaminergic pathways are involved in recalling memories. Dopamine is mostly produced in the Ventral Tegmental Area(VTA) of the brain and travels to the DH. It was concluded by the use of optogenetics and chemical injections that this pathway is involved in the reinstatement of memories. More shockingly it was noted that in females there is a higher innervation density between the VTA and the DH in comparison to males. This information helps us understand the underlying working of episodic memories and their long lasting storage. We use our memories every day to navigate our world around us. By understanding the way that memory works we will be able to help those who have memory deficits. Research like this brings us closer every day to treating diseases such as Alzheimer's Disease along with other neurodegenerative disorders. We move forward knowing that we will be closer to helping our veterans with PTSD cope with their new environments and potentially suppress the triggers that cause them to struggle in day to day life.

Alford, H. (2018, June 8). Total Recall: A Reader's Guide to Memory Gain. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/07/books/memory-loss-books.html

Episodic Memory and Semantic Memory - Types of Memory - The Human Memory. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.human-memory.net/types_episodic.html

Yamawaki N, et al. (2018, June 6). Differential Contributions of Glutamatergic Hippocampal→Retrosplenial Cortical Projections to the Formation and Persistence of Context Memories. - PubMed - NCBI. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29878069