原型激活促发顿悟的大脑机制:来自ERP研究的证据

通过"多对对"学习-测试的两阶段实验范型,采用事件相关电位(ERP)技术探讨了顿悟问题(字谜)解决中原型激活促发顿悟的脑内时程动态变化。结果发现,在字谜呈现后的1400 ms内,"有顿悟"与"无顿悟"字谜所诱发的脑电活动基本一致,说明原型字谜的激活可能有自动化加工的趋势;随后,在1400 ms-2500 ms内,"有顿悟"比"无顿悟"字谜诱发出一个更加负性的ERP成分,具体包括:1400-1700 ms(LNC1),1700-2000 ms(LNC2)以及2000-2500 ms(LNC3)。偶极子定位结果显示,LNC1主要起源于左侧额中回附近,可能与关键性启发信息的激活过程有关;LNC2主要起源于左侧额叶,可能主要反映了思维定势的打破以及新异联系的形成过程;而LNC3主要起源于PPC附近,可能与猜中字谜后的情绪体验有关。     

问题解决中顿悟的原型位置效应的fMRI研究

科学发明创造中, 人们往往对一个问题百思不得其解, 但在看到某一启发性事物(原型)时, 突然产生顿悟, 继而发现解决问题的新思路。本研究以科学发明创造问题为实验材料, 采取“先呈现问题、后呈现原型”和“先呈现原型、后呈现问题”两种范式, 探讨问题解决中顿悟的原型位置效应, 并采用fMRI技术记录大脑的BOLD信号变化。结果发现：行为结果上, “问题在先”条件下正确率显著高于“原型在先”条件; 大脑激活结果上, 问题先导条件下的原型启发的大脑机制主要表现为左侧颞中回(left middle temporal gyrus)和左侧额中回(left middle frontal gyrus)的显著激活, “原型在先”条件下, 主要激活左侧扣带回(left cingulate gyrus)、左侧中央前回(left middle frontal gyrus)。     

创造性思维四阶段的神经基础

华莱士(Wallas)四阶段论是创造性思维过程研究的重要模型, 该模型认为创造性思维包括准备期、酝酿期、明朗期、验证期。相关神经机制研究表明, 准备期主要包括题目呈现前大脑状态和静息状态的研究, 内侧额叶/ACC及颞叶构成准备期网络; 酝酿期主要包括酝酿期提示、延迟顿悟以及心智游移的相关研究, 这一阶段涉及左右脑的共同参与, 海马、腹内侧前额叶等脑区在酝酿过程中起重要作用; 现有顿悟研究反映明朗期和验证期神经活动, 前额叶、扣带回、颞上回、海马、楔叶、楔前叶、舌回、小脑等在内的脑区构成其神经基础, 其中, 扣带回、前额叶在不同角度进行的研究中均有参与, 颞上回是负责远距离联想的关键脑区, 海马参与定势打破与新颖联系形成, 外侧额叶是定势转移的关键脑区, 楔前叶、左侧额下/额中回、舌回在原型激活中起关键作用, 左外侧前额叶参与对答案细节性的验证加工。未来研究可从研究对象、研究内容、研究手段三方面加以改进, 以对创造性思维过程作更系统的探讨。     

科学发明情境中问题提出的fMRI研究

本研究中, 以76个科学发明问题(36个带有相关的原型, 40个不带有相关的原型)为实验材料,使用功能性磁共振成像(fMRI)技术探讨了科学发明情境中的问题提出以及新近获得的语义对有价值的科学问题提出的启发效应的大脑机制。对有原型提出有价值的科学问题与无原型提出一般问题这两种情况下被试反应的数据进行记录和分析。结果表明两种情况下共同激活的脑区(科学发明情境中问题提出的脑区)为左侧梭状回、左侧内侧额叶、左侧豆状核、右小脑和左侧中央前回。这些共同激活的脑区表明：左侧梭状回也许与各个语句的语义表征有关; 左侧内侧额叶也许与所有语句的整体语义表征以及提出各个语义之间的“问题”有关(左侧豆状核和右小脑配合内侧额叶分别负责控制注意、眼动的指向和注意资源的分配); 左侧中央前回可能负责用语句表述出所提出的语义之间的“问题”。对有原型提出有价值的科学问题和无原型提出有价值的科学问题这两种情况下被试反应的数据进行记录和分析。结果表明有原型提出有价值的科学问题比无原型提出有价值的科学问题显著激活的脑区(科学发明情境中新近获得的语义对有价值的科学问题提出的启发效应的脑区)为左侧楔前叶、左侧额下回、左侧颞中回。这些显著激活的脑区表明：楔前叶与情境记忆的贮存和提取有关; 额中回与认知控制和注意资源的分配有关; 颞中回与新异性原型的成功激活有关。     

科学发明情境中问题提出的fMRI研究*

本研究中,以76个科学发明问题(36个带有相关的原型,40个不带有相关的原型)为实验材料,使用功能性磁共振成像(fMRI)技术探讨了科学发明情境中的问题提出以及新近获得的语义对有价值的科学问题提出的启发效应的大脑机制。对有原型提出有价值的科学问题与无原型提出一般问题这两种情况下被试反应的数据进行记录和分析。结果表明两种情况下共同激活的脑区(科学发明情境中问题提出的脑区)为左侧梭状回、左侧内侧额叶、左侧豆状核、右小脑和左侧中央前回。这些共同激活的脑区表明：左侧梭状回也许与各个语句的语义表征有关;左侧内侧额叶也许与所有语句的整体语义表征以及提出各个语义之间的―问题‖有关(左侧豆状核和右小脑配合内侧额叶分别负责控制注意、眼动的指向和注意资源的分配);左侧中央前回可能负责用语句表述出所提出的语义之间的―问题‖。对有原型提出有价值的科学问题和无原型提出有价值的科学问题这两种情况下被试反应的数据进行记录和分析。结果表明有原型提出有价值的科学问题比无原型提出有价值的科学问题显著激活的脑区(科学发明情境中新近获得的语义对有价值的科学问题提出的启发效应的脑区)为左侧楔前叶、左侧额下回、左侧颞中回。这些显著激活的脑区表明：楔前叶与情境记忆的贮存和提取有关;额中回与认知控制和注意资源的分配有关;颞中回与新异性原型的成功激活有关。     

问题先导下语义相似性和原型难度对原型启发的影响

采用现实生活中的科学发明事例,通过两个研究探讨了问题先导下的原型启发促发顿悟的机制。实验1采用简单原型材料,利用"先问题"范式探讨了问题先导下的原型启发促发顿悟的关键认知过程,结果发现问题激活率可以解释问题解决正确率89.3%的变异。实验2采用3种不同难度的原型材料,用"先问题"范式和被试自我报告问题和原型中关键词的方式探讨问题自动激活的机制。结果发现原型和问题关键词的提取对问题激活率有显著影响,而原型和问题关键词之间的语义相似性与问题激活率显著相关。研究表明,问题激活是现实生活中广泛存在的问题先导下的原型启发促发顿悟的关键认知过程。原型的特征性功能和问题的需求性功能之间的语义相似性是问题自动激活的机制。     

艺术设计中创造性思维的fMRI研究：一项基于智能CAD的探索

本项工作尝试将人类思维的神经生物学基础研究与人工智能的研究成果相结合, 利用类比生成模型的原理, 开发了一个计算机辅助设计系统“多源类比人脸生成系统”, 并运用此平台开展了fMRI实验, 对人类大脑创造性思维的神经生物学机制进行了探索。实验采用open-ends模式下的“design task”和problem solving模式下的“control task”作为对照, 共采得15名健康成人被试的有效数据。数据结果显示design task与control task相比更为显著地激活了内侧前额叶、额中回、右侧颞上回、前扣带回、双侧海马、楔前叶这些脑区。综合以往研究推测, 内侧前额叶可能更多地与即兴自由创作中对自我信息的表征有关, 颞叶可能与不断产生和输出新颖性的观点有关, 边缘系统则可能主要与创造性活动中的动力驱动作用有关。总的来说, 创造性思维是多个脑区同时参与的高度分布式加工的结果。     

顿悟的大脑机制

自从柯勒1917年提出顿悟的概念以来,这个问题一直吸引着心理学家的关注。但有关顿悟过程的精确的大脑机制却始终未被触及。从心理过程上看,顿悟是一个瞬间实现的、问题解决视角的“新旧交替”过程;它包含两个方面,一是新的有效的问题解决思路如何实现,二是旧的无效的思路如何被抛弃（即打破思维定势）。我们以谜语作为材料,利用功能性磁共振成像（fMRI）技术精确记录了人类的大脑在实现顿悟的一瞬间的活动状况。结果显示顿悟过程激活了包括额叶、颞叶、扣带前回、以及海马在内的广泛脑区。根据各方面的综合证据,本文认为：顿悟过程中,新异而有效的联系的形成依赖于海马,问题表征方式的有效转换依赖于一个“非语言的” 视觉空间信息加工网络,而思维定势的打破与转移则依赖于扣带前回与左腹侧额叶。     

创造发明中顿悟的原型启发脑机制

科学界关于“原型启发”催化创造发明中顿悟发生的事例十分普遍, 从中国的“鲁班从带齿边的茅草中得到启发而发明锯子”的传说, 到“瓦特从沸腾的开水壶上受到启发而发明蒸汽机”的经典故事, 都说明“原型启发”是创造发明的一种重要思维方式。然而, 由于创造发明思维过程的复杂性, 国内外关于创造性思维脑机制的研究还停留在非科学问题解决的研究上。依据科学家运用原型启发而成功发明创造的最新实例, 项目组编制了《创造发明实验问题材料库》, 并计划以功能性磁共振成像(fMRI)和事件相关电位(ERP)作为技术手段系统探讨原型启发催化创造发明中顿悟发生的脑机制, 例如, 原型激活和启发信息利用的脑机制、问题意识下灵感捕捉的脑机制以及原型知识表征、动机与情绪状态、大脑工作状态等因素对原型启发影响的脑机制。该研究的开展, 对理解人类的创造性本质具有重要的理论意义, 对培养和激发人的创造力具有一定的实践价值。     

猜谜作业中顿悟的ERP效应

采用事件相关电位(ERP)探索问题解决过程中顿悟的神经机制。以猜谜作业为实验程序,对“有顿悟”和“无顿悟”答案引发的脑电分别进行叠加和平均,并将二者相减（有顿悟-无顿悟）得到差异波。在250~500 ms “有顿悟”比“无顿悟”的ERP波形有一个更加负性的偏移,在差异波中,这个负成分的潜伏期约为380 ms（N380）。地形图和电流密度图显示,N380在额中央区活动最强。偶极子源定位分析结果显示,N380可能起源于扣带前回。因此,N380可能反映顿悟问题解决过程中思维定势的突破。     

Aha! Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere

In one experiment, we tested for an association between semantic activation in the right hemisphere (RH) and left hemisphere (LH) and the Aha! experience when people recognize solutions to insight-like problems. The compound remote associate problems used in this experiment sometimes evoke an Aha! experience and sometimes do not. On each trial, participants (N = 44) attempted to solve these problems and, after 7 sec, named a target word, made a solution decision, and rated their insight experience of recognizing the solution. As in prior studies, the participants demonstrated more solution priming for solutions presented to the left visual field-RH (lvf-RH) than for solutions presented to the right visual field-LH (rvf-LH). As was predicted, following unsolved problems the participants showed greater priming for solutions that they rated as evoking an insight experience on the subsequent solution decision than for solutions that did not evoke an insight experience. This association was stronger for solutions presented to the lvf-RH than for those presented to the rvf-LH. These results tie the subjective experience of insight to an objective measure-semantic priming-and suggest that people have an Aha! experience in part because they already had semantic activation that could lead them to recognize the solution quickly. We believe semantic activation in both hemispheres cooperatively contributes to problem solving, but weak solution activation that contributes to the Aha! experience is more likely to occur in the RH than in the LH.     

再探猜谜作业中“顿悟”的ERP效应

采用事件相关电位(ERP)技术探讨顿悟问题（字谜）解决中提供答案后的脑内时程动态变化。结果发现,在250~400 ms内,“有顿悟”和“不理解”比“无顿悟”的ERP波形均有一个更为负向的偏移。在“有顿悟—无顿悟”和“不理解—无顿悟”的差异波中,这个负成分的潜伏期约为320 ms (N320),地形图显示,N320在中后部活动最强。进一步对“有顿悟—无顿悟”差异波作偶极子溯源分析,发现N320主要起源于扣带前回（ACC）附近。这似乎表明,N320可能反映了提供答案瞬间新旧思路之间的认知冲突,但是却不能真正揭示顿悟问题解决中思维定势的成功突破以及“恍然大悟”所对应的独特脑内时程变化     

Can People Recollect Well and Change Their Source Memory Bias of “Aha!” Experiences?

Although many scientific discoveries were frequently reported as kinds of insightful breakthrough that suddenly illuminated in one's mind, we can never exactly know whether these afterward reports were reliable or not. In this study, subjects were asked to solve a list of Remote Associate Test problems and got both subsets of the insightfully and routinely solved items. Then, this study examined whether people can recollect their “Aha!” experiences as well as “non‐Aha” ones. It was found that subjects were more accurate in recollecting their Aha! experiences relative to the routine ones. The study further examined if the report bias of Aha! or non‐Aha problem solving experiences could be changed by the afterward‐suggestive information that indicated the discovery is unique (rare) or not. It was found that the tendency for participants to falsely recollect their routine problem solving experience as Aha! ones if they were told the item they had solved was very rare, and the tendency to falsely recollect the Aha! problem solving experiences as routine ones if the item were said to be common.     

A factor related to the strength of an "Aha!" experience

Abstract: It is natural to assume that the strength of an "Aha!" becomes stronger when an unexpected solution is correct. In this study, this assumption is examined experimentally through a list of possible correct solutions. In the experiment, subjects listed the possible correct solutions before solving the problems, and evaluated the strength of their "Aha!" experience after they solved the problems. It was shown that the strength of the "Aha!" experience was strongest if the correct answer had not been included in the list of possible correct solutions; if included, the strength of the "Aha!" experience corresponded to the answer's position in the list, that is, the later the correct solution listed, the stronger the feeling became. It is suggested that the strength of an "Aha!" experience can be used as an error function in the learning process.     

When the Solution Is on the Doorstep: Better Solving Performance,but Diminished Aha! Experience for Chess Experts on the Mutilated Checkerboard Problem

Insight problems are difficult because the initially activated knowledge hinders successful solving. The crucial information needed for a solution is often so far removed that gaining access to it through restructuring leads to the subjective experience of “Aha!”. Although this assumption is shared by most insight theories, there is little empirical evidence for the connection between the necessity of restructuring an incorrect problem representation and the Aha! experience. Here, we demonstrate a rare case where previous knowledge facilitates the solving of insight problems but reduces the accompanying Aha! experience. Chess players were more successful than non‐chess players at solving the mutilated checkerboard insight problem, which requires retrieval of chess‐related information about the color of the squares. Their success came at a price, since they reported a diminished Aha! experience compared to controls. Chess players’ problem‐solving ability was confined to that particular problem, since they struggled to a similar degree to non‐chess players to solve another insight problem (the eight‐coin problem), which does not require chess‐related information for a solution. Here, chess players and non‐chess players experienced the same degree of insight.     

In search of the ‘Aha!’ experience: Elucidating the emotionality of insight problem‐solving

Although the experience of insight has long been noted, the essence of the ‘Aha!’ experience, reflecting a sudden change in the brain that accompanies an insight solution, remains largely unknown. This work aimed to uncover the mystery of the ‘Aha!’ experience through three studies. In Study 1, participants were required to solve a set of verbal insight problems and then subjectively report their affective experience when solving the problem. The participants were found to have experienced many types of emotions, with happiness the most frequently reported one. Multidimensional scaling was employed in Study 2 to simplify the dimensions of these reported emotions. The results showed that these different types of emotions could be clearly placed in two‐dimensional space and that components constituting the ‘Aha!’ experience mainly reflected positive emotion and approached cognition. To validate previous findings, in Study 3, participants were asked to select the most appropriate emotional item describing their feelings at the time the problem was solved. The results of this study replicated the multidimensional construct consisting of approached cognition and positive affect. These three studies provide the first direct evidence of the essence of the ‘Aha!’ experience. The potential significance of the findings was discussed.     

新颖语义联结在顿悟促进记忆效果中的作用

采用成语谜题选择任务, 通过学习-测验范式探究顿悟促进记忆的认知神经机制。实验1采用行为实验, 验证成语谜题选择范式在探究顿悟促进记忆中的有效性, 结果显示, 相比于寻常联结条件, 新颖联结条件下被试在学习阶段具有更高的顿悟感得分, 在测试阶段具有更高的正确率, 范式的有效性得以验证。实验2采用fMRI技术探究顿悟促进记忆的关键脑区。结果显示, 相比于失败记忆新颖联结条件, 成功记忆新颖联结条件更强地激活了顿悟过程相关脑区, 包括海马、杏仁核、额中回、颞上回和颞中回。这说明在学习阶段的顿悟问题解决过程中, 对信息的深加工与积极情绪促进了随后的记忆; 对其进一步分析发现, 相比于寻常联结记忆, 新颖联结对记忆的促进效应主要与右侧海马激活有关, 它可能反映了在顿悟问题解决中新颖联结形成过程建立了情节记忆以及新颖且有价值的语义联结。研究结果表明新颖语义联结形成在顿悟促进记忆中发挥了重要作用。     

The Aha! Moment: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight

ABSTRACT— A sudden comprehension that solves a problem, reinterprets a situation, explains a joke, or resolves an ambiguous percept is called an insight (i.e., the " Aha! moment"). Psychologists have studied insight using behavioral methods for nearly a century. Recently, the tools of cognitive neuroscience have been applied to this phenomenon. A series of studies have used electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the neural correlates of the " Aha! moment" and its antecedents. Although the experience of insight is sudden and can seem disconnected from the immediately preceding thought, these studies show that insight is the culmination of a series of brain states and processes operating at different time scales. Elucidation of these precursors suggests interventional opportunities for the facilitation of insight.     

The Experience of Insight Facilitates Long-Term Semantic Priming in the Right Hemisphere

While past research has demonstrated a link between the subjective “Aha” experience of insight and verbal insight problem solution activation in the right hemisphere (RH), no one has yet linked insight to long term semantic priming. We propose that through a shared process of semantic integration both of these concepts are linked and thus the experience of insight should facilitate semantic priming in the RH. Participants attempted to solve a group of compound remote associate problems and afterwards completed a lexical decision task. The results showed that the experience of insight facilitated semantic priming in the RH, but only for unsolved compound remote associate problems. It was also shown that participants who indicated that they generated more solutions through insight that were incorrect demonstrated the most semantic priming in the RH. These results indicate that long-term semantic priming can occur as a result of insight solutions, and that this activation occurs predominantly in the RH. This study extends both the evidence for long-lasting semantic priming as well the theory of coarse semantic coding in the RH.     

Aha! experiences leave a mark: facilitated recall of insight solutions

The present study investigates a possible memory advantage for solutions that were reached through insightful problem solving. We hypothesized that insight solutions (with Aha! experience) would be remembered better than noninsight solutions (without Aha! experience). 34 video clips of magic tricks were presented to 50 participants as a novel problem-solving task, asking them to find out how the trick was achieved. Upon discovering the solution, participants had to indicate whether they had experienced insight during the solving process. After a delay of 14 days, a recall of solutions was conducted. Overall, 55 % of previously solved tricks were recalled correctly. Comparing insight and noninsight solutions, 64.4 % of all insight solutions were recalled correctly, whereas only 52.4 % of all noninsight solutions were recalled correctly. We interpret this finding as a facilitating effect of previous insight experiences on the recall of solutions.