The eureka effect (also known as the Aha! or eureka mom) refers to an ordinary human experience that suddenly understands issues that were previously unintelligible or concept. Some studies describe Aha! effect (also known as insight or epiphany) as a memory gain, but conflicting results exist precisely where it occurs in the brain, and it is difficult to predict in what situations one can predict Aha! moment.
Insight is a psychological term that tries to describe the process of solving a problem when a previously unresolved puzzle suddenly becomes clear and clear. Often the transition from not understanding to this spontaneous understanding is accompanied by exclamations of joy or satisfaction, an Aha! moment. Someone who uses insight to solve problems is capable of providing accurate, discrete, or all kinds of responses, whereas individuals who do not use insightful processes are more likely to produce partial and incomplete responses.
The latest theoretical report on Aha! when it begins with four decisive attributes of this experience. First, Aha! when it suddenly appeared; second, the solution to a problem can be processed smoothly, or smoothly; third, Aha! when generating a positive influence; fourth, someone who has Aha! when convinced that the solution is true. These four attributes are not separate but can be combined due to the experience of processing fluency, especially when it occurs surprisingly (for example, because of a sudden), bringing up both the positive influence and truth judged.
Insights can be conceptualized as a two-phase process. The first phase of Aha! experience requires problem solvers to get stuck, where they get stuck and although they seem to have explored all possibilities, still can not pick up or generate solutions. The second phase occurs suddenly and unexpectedly. After a break in mental fixation or re-evaluate the problem, the answer is taken. Some research indicates that insight problems are difficult to solve because of our mental fixation on the inappropriate aspects of the problem content. To solve insight problems, one must "think outside the box". This is a complicated exercise that can cause people to have a better memory for Aha! a moment ago. Insights are believed to occur with a break in mental fixation, allowing solutions to appear transparent and clear.
Video Eureka effect
History and etymology
This effect is named after the story of Archymedes polymath of ancient Greece. In the story, Archimedes was asked (about 250 BC) by the local monarch to determine whether a crown was pure gold. During his next trip to the public baths, Archimedes notes that the water is displaced when his body sinks into the bath, and in particular the volume of water moved to equal the volume of his body immersed in the water. After finding a way of measuring the volume of irregular objects, and understanding the method for solving the king's problem, Archimedes allegedly jumped out and ran home naked, chanting "eureka" (I had found it). This story is now considered fictitious, as it was first mentioned by the Roman writer Vitruvius almost 200 years after the date of the alleged incident, and because the method described by Vitruvius would not work. However, Archimedes certainly does important and original work in hydrostatics, especially in On Floating Bodies.
Maps Eureka effect
Research
Initial research
The Eureka effect was first described by Pamela Auble, Jeffrey Franks and Salvatore Soraci in 1979. The subject would be presented with a confusing sentence like "The haystack is important because the cloth is torn". After a certain period of time that is not understood by the reader, the word cue (parachute) will be presented, the reader can understand the sentence, and this results in better drawing on the memory test. The subjects spent a considerable amount of time solving the problem, and at first hypothesized that elaboration toward understanding can play a role in improving memory. There is no evidence that elaboration has any effect to remember. It was found that the phrase "easy" and "hard" resulted in Aha! effects have a much better recall rate than sentences that the subject can understand immediately. Even the same level of memory is acquired for both "easy" and "hard" sentences that are initially incomprehensible. It seems this dissatisfaction with understanding that produces a better memory. The essence of the sense of aha that underlies the systematic problem-solving problem was investigated empirically by Shen and his colleagues.
How people solve insight problems
There are currently two theories about how people arrive at solutions to insight problems. The first is progress monitoring theory . The person will analyze the distance from their current state to the state of destination. Once someone realizes that they can not solve the problem while on their current path, they will look for alternative solutions. In this insight problem usually occurs at the end of the puzzle. The second way people use to solve this puzzle is representational change theory . The problem solvers initially had a low probability of success because they used unsuitable knowledge because they established unnecessary constraints on the problem. Once the person has loosened his limitations, they can bring previously unavailable knowledge into working memory to solve the problem. The man also uses the decomposition of the chunk, in which he will separate the meaningful pieces into its component parts. Both the relaxation constraint and the decomposition of the pieces allow a change in representation, that is, a change in the distribution of activation throughout the working memory, at which point they can exclaim, "Aha!" Currently both theories have support, with progress monitoring theory more suited to some step problems, and the theory of representational change is more suited to a one-step problem.
The Eureka effect on memory occurs only when there is initial confusion. When the subject is presented with the word instructions before the confusing sentence is presented, there is no effect on the recall. If instructions are given after the sentence is presented, a recall increase occurs.
Memory
It has been determined that the recall is greater for items produced by the subject than if the subject is presented with stimuli. There seems to be a memory gain for instances where people can generate their own answers, remember higher when Aha! reaction occurs. They test sentences that are initially difficult to understand, but when presented with a written word, understanding becomes clearer. Other evidence found to suggest that efforts in processing visual stimuli are more commonly remembered than stimuli that are only presented. This study was conducted using connecting-dots or oral instructions to produce unreasonable or real images. It is believed that attempts are made to understand something when the encoding induces an alternative cue activation which then participates in the recall.
cerebral lateralization
Functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalogram studies have found that problem solving requires insight involving increased activity in the right hemisphere compared with non-insightful problem solving. In particular, increased activity is found in the anterior superior hemisphere of the superior temporal gyrus.
Sleep
Some unconscious processes can occur when a person is sleeping, and there are some cases of scientific discovery that come to the people in their dreams. Friedrich August KekulÃÆ' Â © von Stradonitz said that the structure of the benzene ring came to him in a dream in which a snake ate its own tail. Research has shown improved performance on insight issues if the subject sleeps during the break between receiving the problem and completing it. Sleep can serve to restructure the problem, and allow new insights to be achieved. Henri PoincarÃÆ'Â © states that she values ​​sleep as a time for "unconscious minds" that help her solve problems.
Other theories
Professor Stellan Ohlsson believes that at the beginning of the problem-solving process, some prominent features of the problem are incorporated into the mental representation of the problem. In the first step to solve the problem, it is considered based on previous experience. Finally, an impasse is reached, in which all approaches to the problem have failed, and the person becomes frustrated. Ohlsson believes that this impasse drives an unconscious process that changes the mental representation of a problem, and causes new solutions to occur.
General procedures for conducting ERP and EEG studies
When studying insights, or Aha! effects, ERP or EEG common methods used. Initially baseline measurements are taken, which generally ask the subject to simply remember the answer to the question. After this, subjects are asked to focus on the screen when logogriph is displayed, and then they are given time with a blank screen to get the answer, once they are prompted to press the button. After that the answer appears on the screen. The subjects are then asked to press a button to indicate that they are thinking of the right answer and the other to indicate if they are wrongly answering, ultimately, not to press a button at all if they are not sure or do not know the answer.
Evidence in the EEG study
Neural-breaking activities have a strong influence on the cognitive strategies used when solving problems, especially in the case of finding solutions by methodical search or by sudden insight. The two cognitive strategies used involve searching and analyzing the current state of a problem, to the state of the purpose of the problem, while the insight problem is the sudden awareness of the solution to the problem.
The subjects studied were first recorded on the base-line state of thought. Once tested using the methods described in the General Procedures for Undertaking ERP and EEG Studies, the insight versus non-insight solution ratio is made to determine whether a person is classified as a high insight (HI) or individual low insight (LI). Discrimination between individual HI and LI is important because both groups use different cognitive strategies to solve the anagram problem used in this study. Right hemisphere activation is believed to be involved in Aha! effect, so it is not surprising that HI individuals will show greater activation in the right hemisphere than in the left hemisphere when compared with individual LI. Evidence was found to support this idea; there is greater activation of HI subjects in the right dorsal-frontal (right alpha-low), right inferior-frontal (beta and gamma band) and right parietal (gamma band) areas. As for the LI subjects, leave the left anterior-temporal area left and active (low-alpha band).
There is also a difference of attention between individuals HI and LI. It has been suggested that highly creative individuals show widespread concern, allowing them more environmental stimuli. It was found that individuals displaying HI will have less resting alpha-band occipital activity, which means there will be less inhibition of the visual system. Individuals who are less creative are found to focus their attention, thus causing them to take fewer samples from their environment. Although, individual LI is shown to have more occipital beta activity, consistent with increased focused attention.
Evidence in the ERP study
These results reflect the model rather than empirical evidence, as the source of localization is difficult to determine precisely. Because of the nature of this study using Chinese logographs, there are difficulties in proper translation; language barriers must exist.
There are some difficulties that exist in brain imaging when it comes to insight, thus making it difficult to discuss neural mechanisms. Problems include: insights that occur when unwarranted mental fixation is broken and when new association of related tasks is formed over old cognitive skills.
One theory being discussed found that the answer "Aha" resulted in a more negative ERP result, N380 in ACC, than the "No-Aha" answer, 250-500 ms, after the answer was generated. The authors suspect that the N380 is in the ACC, which plays the role of a warning to break the mental set, a reflection of Aha! effect. Another study conducted showed that Aha! effects are generated on the N320 which has strong activation in the posterior-center region. Previous studies reflect the premise of research, that Aha! the effect occurred in the anterior cingulate cortex, while the present study found results showing the positively cingulate cortex responsible. It was found that there were N350s in the posterior cingulate cortex to guess with logistical success, rather than in the anterior cingulate cortex. The posterior cingulate cortex seems to play a more non-executive function in monitoring and inhibiting mind sets and cognitive functions.
Another significant finding from this study conducted by Qiu and Zhang (2008), is the final positive component (LPC) in guessing the success of logograph and then recognition of answers at 600 and 700 ms, post-stimulus, in parahippocampal gyrus (BA34). The data indicate that the parahippocampus is involved in finding the correct answer by manipulating it in working memory, and integrating the relationship between the base of the target logon. The parahippocampal gyrus may reflect the formation of new associations while solving insight problems.
Other ERP studies are quite similar to those of Qiu and Zhang, 2008; however, this study claims to have anterior cingulate cortex activation on the N380, which may be responsible for mediation of mental breakdown. Other areas of interest are the prefrontal cortex (PFC), the posterior parietal cortex, and the medial temporal lobes. If the subject fails to solve the puzzle, and then is shown the correct answer, they display a feeling of insight, reflecting the recording of the electroencephalogram.
Overall, it's pretty clear that there are many aspects that can explain Aha! effect. No specific area has been determined but from the information gathered, it seems that the insight takes place in many parts of the brain, within a certain period of time.
Evidence in fMRI study
A study with the aim of recording activities that occur in the brain during Aha! when using fMRI done in 2003 by Jing Luo and Kazuhisa Niki. Participants in the study were presented with a series of Japanese puzzles, and were asked to assess their impressions of each question using the following scale: (1) I can understand this question very well and know the answer; (2) I can understand this question very well and feel it is interesting, but I do not know the answer; or (3) I can not understand this question and do not know the answer. This scale allows researchers to only see participants who will experience Aha! when looking at the answer to the puzzle. In an earlier study of insight, researchers have found that participants reported feelings of insight when they saw answers to puzzles or unsolved problems. Luo and Niki have a goal to record these feelings of insight in their participants using fMRI. This method allows researchers to directly observe the activity that occurs in the participant's brain during Aha! moment.
- Examples of Japanese puzzles used in the study: Objects that can move heavy wood, but can not move a small nail -> River.
Participants were given 3 minutes to respond to each puzzle, before the answer to the puzzle was revealed. If participants have Aha! When looking at the correct answer, every brain activity will be recorded on fMRI. The fMRI results for this study show that when participants were given answers to unsolved puzzles, activity in their right hippocampus increased significantly during this Aha! a moment ago. This increase in activity in the right hippocampus can be attributed to the formation of new associations between the old nodes. This new association will in turn strengthen the memory for their puzzles and solutions.
Although various studies use EEG, ERP, and activation of fMRI reports in different areas of the brain during Aha! At times, it is interesting to note that this activity occurs mainly in the right hemisphere. More details on the insightful neural bases see a recent review named "New advances in insightful neural correlations: A decade of insightful brain reviews"
Insight issues and issues with insights
Insight issues
Nine Point Problem
The Nine Dot Problem is a classic spatial problem used by psychologists to study insights. The problem consists of 3 Ã- 3 squares made by 9 black dots. His job is to connect all 9 points using exactly 4 straight lines, without correcting or removing a person's pen from the paper. Kershaw & amp; Ohlsson reported that in a laboratory setting with a time limit of 2 or 3 minutes, the expected solution level is 0%.
The difficulty with the Nine Dot Problems is that it requires the respondent to look beyond the conventional land-figure relationship that creates subtle spatial constraints, illusions and (literally) "thinking out of the box". Solving spatial constraints shows a shift of attention in working memory and utilizing new knowledge factors to solve puzzles.
Verbal puzzles
Verbal puzzles are becoming a popular issue in insightful research.
Example: "A man was washing windows in a tall building when he fell from a 40-foot staircase down a concrete path below.It's amazing he's not hurt Why? [Answer] He sneaked off the bottom step!"
Arithmetic matches
The arithmetic of matches, developed and used by G. Knoblich, involves matches designed to show simple but incorrect mathematical equations in Roman numerals. Its job is to correct the equation by moving only one matchstick.
Anagram
Anagram involves manipulating the sequence of a series of specific letters to create one or many words. The original set of letters may be the word itself, or just a jumble.
Example: Santa can be changed to spell Satan . Boil puzzle
Boiled puzzles, also called "wordies", involve visual and verbal cues that force respondents to restructure and "read between lines" (almost literally) to solve puzzles.
Some examples:
- Puzzles: You're just me [ Answer: only between you and me ]
- Puzzles: PATTERNS [ Answer: death sentence ]
- Puzzle:
i i i
OOOOO
[ Answer: under the eye circle ] Associate Test Remote (RAT)
The Remote Associates Test (known as RAT) was developed by Martha Mednick in 1962 to test creativity. However, it has recently been used in insight research.
This test consists of presenting participants with a set of words, such as licking , mine , and shaker . His job is to identify words that connect the three seemingly unrelated words. In this example, the answer is salt . The relationship between words is associative, and does not follow the rules of logic, concept formation or problem solving, and thus requires the respondent to work beyond these general heuristic constraints.
Performance on RAT is known to correlate with performance on other standard insight issues.
Eight Coins Problem
In this case, a set of 8 coins is arranged on the table in a particular configuration, and the subject is told to move 2 coins so that all the coins touch exactly the other three. The difficulty in this problem comes from thinking about the problem in a pure 2-dimensional way, when a 3-dimensional approach is the only way to solve a problem.
Issues with insights
Insight research is a problem because of ambiguity and lack of agreement among psychologists about its definition. This is largely explained by the phenomenological nature of insight, and the difficulty in catalyzing its occurrence, as well as the ways experimentally "triggered".
A set of insight problems currently used by small and warm psychologists, and because of the heterogeneity and difficulty levels that are often high, is not conducive to validity or reliability.
One of the biggest issues surrounding the issue of insight is that for most participants, they are too difficult. For many problems, this difficulty revolves around the necessary restructuring or reconceptualisation of possible problems or solutions, for example, drawing a line outside the box consisting of points in the Nine Point Problem.
Furthermore, there is a problem associated with the insight problem taxonomy. The puzzles and problems used in the experiment to gain insight can be classified in two ways. The problem of "pure" views is a matter that requires the use of insight, while the "hybrid" view problem is a problem that can be solved by other methods, such as trials and errors. As Weisberg (1996) points out, the presence of hybrid problems in insightful studies poses a significant threat to the evidence gathered from the studies that employ them. While the phenomenological experience of insight can help distinguish insecurity from non-insights (by asking respondents to explain how they solve a problem, for example), the risk that non-insightful solutions have gone wrong because insightful resolution still exists.. Likewise, the issues surrounding the validity of the evidence of insight are also threatened by small sample sizes. Experiments can recruit the original sample size adequately, but because of the degree of difficulty attached to the problem of insight, only a small sample succeeds in solving the puzzle or task assigned to them; placing serious restrictions on usable data. In the case of studies using hybrid problems, the latter samples have a greater risk of being very small by excluding any percentage of respondents who solve the puzzles given without the use of insight.
There are several examples of scientific discoveries made after a sudden flash of sight. One of the key insights in developing the theory of relativity in particular came to Albert Einstein while talking to his friend, Michele Besso:
I started a conversation with him in the following way: "I've been working on a difficult problem recently and today I came here to fight the matter with you." We discuss every aspect of this issue. Then suddenly I understand where the key to this problem lies. The next day I returned to him and told him, without even saying hello, "Thank you, I've really solved the problem."
However, Einstein has said that the whole idea of ​​special relativity does not come to him as a sudden eureka moment, and that he "guides it in steps arising from the laws of the individual who come from experience". Similarly, Carl Friedrich Gauss said after the eureka moment: "I have the result, it's just that I do not know how to get it."
Sir Alec Jeffreys had a eureka moment in his laboratory in Leicester after viewing an X-ray film image of a DNA experiment at 9:05 pm on Monday 10 September 1984, which unexpectedly showed both the similarities and differences between DNAs of different members. his technical family. Within about half an hour, he realized the scope of the DNA profile, which uses variations in the genetic code to identify individuals. This method becomes important in forensic science to aid detective work, and in resolving paternity and immigration disputes. It can also be applied to non-human species, as in the study of wildlife population genetics. Before his method was commercialized in 1987, Jeffrey's laboratory was the only center for DNA fingerprinting in the world.
In popular psychology
Oprah Winfrey
Popular culture has its own view of Aha! effect. Although both are defined as moments of insight that change the state of one's mind, its application is very different. Where scientists have focused on understanding the mechanisms of insight as well as how and where Aha! moments happening in the brain, Oprah Winfrey has taken this phenomenon and turned it into a popular and well known state of mind. By focusing on the experience of emotional change and the life of individual experiences, Oprah looks at Aha! effect as a moment of sudden realization, in which an individual realizes that they need to make changes or move forward in life. Oprah includes Aha! A few moments in his monthly magazine, O: The Oprah Magazine , and generally make reference to these moments of understanding on the television show he deduced now, Oprah .
See also
- Fear (understanding)
- Rubber duck duck
Note
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments