顿悟问题解决不同阶段中工作记忆的作用

该研究探讨了顿悟问题解决不同阶段中工作记忆的作用。在实验1中,以87名大学生为被试,使用多种工作记忆广度任务和言语顿悟任务,探讨了工作记忆对于言语顿悟问题解决不同阶段的影响;在实验2中,以119名大学生为被试,使用多种工作记忆广度任务和空间顿悟任务,探讨了工作记忆对于空间顿悟问题解决不同阶段的影响。研究结果表明,初始搜索阶段与重构阶段是相对独立的两个阶段;工作记忆对于顿悟问题解决的不同阶段有着不同的影响,它主要影响顿悟问题解决的初始搜索阶段,工作记忆能力越强,初始搜索阶段所需时间越少;工作记忆对于顿悟问题解决的重构阶段无显著影响,这一点支持了关于重构内在机制的特殊过程观。     

顿悟问题解决过程中抑制解除理论有效性的实验研究

本研究以Puzzle任务为材料,对135名高二学生特定线索下的操作水平进行测查,结果表明：（1）表征的抑制解除理论对顿悟问题解决的机制具有一定的解释效力,表现为总体上经历了高操作失败次数的被试在线索敏感性上明显高于未经历操作失败次数的被试。（2）而被试在特定阶段的操作水平未出现朝向解决目标的线性增长而是出现停滞的现象证明了问题的表征复杂性对抑制解除的过程存在制约作用,使其宏观上表现为渐进-停滞-跃升的变化模式。     

顿悟研究及顿悟与智力超常的关系

顿悟(insight)就是以与众不同的方式突然地理解了一个问题,或理解了一条有助于该问题解决的策略。在常规的、结构良好的问题解决中虽也有顿悟的出现,但是顿悟更多地光顾于结构不好的问题的理解与解决过程中。所谓结构不好的问题就是不具备明确的解决路径的问题,这些问题往往没有良好定义的问题空间。问题解决者较难建立起合适的心理表征来构建问题以及问题解决的模型。对于这类问题而言,建立问题解决计划以确定一系列步骤来逼近问题的最终解决同样存在困难。通常这类问题也被称为顿悟问题。     

工作记忆对顿悟和分析型问题解决的影响

摘要 采用顿悟-分析自我报告范式,以远距离联想任务为实验材料,从工作记忆容量和工作记忆负荷两个角度考察了工作记忆对顿悟和分析型问题解决的影响。结果表明,高工作记忆容量个体分析型问题解决的表现优于低工作记忆容量者,但在顿悟表现上无显著差异;工作记忆负荷较小时个体分析型问题解决表现更佳,但对顿悟表现没有影响。说明通过分析解决创造性问题的表现依赖于工作记忆的支持,而通过顿悟解决问题的表现与工作记忆无关。     

基于线索的顿悟问题解决:图式和表征操作的影响

对小学、初中、高中学生共270名被试在不同线索条件下解决顿悟问题T puzzle的表现进行研究,结果表明:(1)由于图式运用水平的发展,知觉定势在单一线索下对高二被试的限制作用更为明显,导致小学五年级和初中二年级被试的问题解决时间短于高中二年级;(2)由于表征操作能力发展水平的限制,增大需操作表征数目的线索不利于五年级被试的问题解决;较高的表征操作能力发展水平使得高二被试在多重线索下有更好的解决成绩;(3)与图式相关的线索并不能有效提高儿童解决顿悟问题的效率。     

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)。     

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。     

从困境到超越：顿悟的脑机制研究

在1913~1920年间,德国心理学家苛勒进行了有关顿悟的经典实验。苛勒发现挑战了当时占主导地位的“尝试-错误”学习理论,表明问题解决行为可以以一种突发的形式产生,并在一瞬间获得对于问题情境的全新的思考和把握。但是直到最近心理学家才开始逐渐认识顿悟的大脑机制。该文介绍了近期围绕顿悟过程开展的脑成像研究,介绍了有关的研究方法,并讨论了参与顿悟过程的各个关键脑区的功能     

顿悟体验的心理与神经机制

顿悟体验研究是揭示顿悟本质的重要途径。先前研究从认知角度对顿悟问题解决中的"旧而无效解题思路如何抛弃"与"新而有效解题思路如何形成"过程进行了颇多探讨,但较少探讨顿悟体验本身。顿悟体验研究对理清创造性顿悟中关键过程间的关系及阐明顿悟的科学规律均有重要的意义。基于创造性顿悟的"新旧交替"的动态视角,本项目拟借助多元方法来对言语类和视图类问题解决过程中尝试解题阶段和答案闪现阶段的顿悟体验的心理实质与脑机制进行研究。本项目成果不仅可以丰富和优化顿悟问题研究的方法学体系,而且能从知情转化层面深化对创造性顿悟脑机制的认识。     

顿悟问题解决的心理机制的验证性研究

目前顿悟问题解决的心理机制主要存在两个有争议性的理论：进程监控理论和表征变化理论。现以非限制性的停车场问题为实验材料,检验顿悟问题解决的这两个心理机制。结果发现：（1）进程监控理论可解释顿悟被试的成绩优劣;（2）表征变化理论可对顿悟问题能否解决做出解释。     

Incubation in Insight Problem Solving

A break in the attentive activity devoted to a problem may eventually facilitate the solution process. This phenomenon is known by the name incubation. A new hypothesis regarding the incubation mechanism is suggested. It is based on analysis of the structure of insight problems and their solution process. According to this hypothesis, no activity takes place during the break. The break's only function is to divert the solver's attention from the problem, thus releasing her mind from the grip of a false organizing assumption. This enables the solver to apply a new organizing assumption to the problem's components upon returning to the problem. The numbers of experimental studies that confirm the existence of the incubation phenomenon, and those that do not support it, are roughly equal, thus the primary experimental aim of the study is to improve the methodology of manipulating the break. This was done by starting the break only after an impasse has been reached. The results indicate that the break improves performance in insight problem solving, but its length does not make a difference. This supports the suggested hypothesis and does not support hypotheses that postulate unconscious ongoing processes during the break.     

No Role of Initial Problem Representation in Insight Problem Solving

The literature on insight problems—problems that supposedly can only be solved by rejection of an initial faulty problem representation and sudden comprehension of another, nonobvious representation (restructuring)—suggests that the size of initial representations affects the very process of problem solving. Large initial representations impose systematic, analytical search, whereas only small representations promote intuitive, associative processes assumed by some theorists to underpin insight. In a group of 353 young healthy participants, 6 previously validated insight problems were applied in either a small or large initial representation variant. Results demonstrated no reliable difference in performance between the problem variants with regard to (a) solution accuracy, (b) self-reported insight accompanying solutions, (c) effects of fatigue, (d) correlations with another 6 small representation-size problems, and (e) correlations with working memory capacity (which were notable). This outcome suggests that the size of initial faulty representation plays no role in insight problem solving process, supporting the account assuming its strong similarity to systematic, analytical problem solving.     

推理能力、认知方式和启发量对顿悟问题解决不同阶段的影响*

从《科学发明创造实验问题材料库》中选取实验材料,采用“学习多个原型-测试多个问题”的两阶段实验范式,探究推理能力、认知方式和启发量对顿悟问题解决中原型激活与关键启发信息提取这两个阶段的影响。结果发现:(1)高推理能力被试比低推理能力被试的顿悟问题解决水平更高,且高推理能力被试在原型激活和关键启发信息提取上都显著优于低推理能力被试;(2)认知方式对原型激活和关键启发信息提取均没有影响;(3)启发量对原型激活没有影响,但对关键启发信息的提取有影响,并且高启发量的原型比低启发量的原型更能促进关键启发信息的提取。     

Training Insight Problem Solving Through Focus on Barriers and Assumptions

Recent research has reported successful training interventions that improve insight problem solving. In some ways this is surprising, because the processes involved in insight solutions are often assumed to be unconscious, whereas the training interventions focus on conscious cognitive strategies. We propose one mechanism that may help to explain this apparent disconnect. Recognition of a barrier to progress during insight problem solving may provide a point of access to the tacit constraining assumptions that have misled the solution process. We tested this proposal in an experiment that examined the effects of different training routines on problem solving. The experiment compared four training routines, focusing either on barriers and assumptions combined, barriers alone, assumptions alone, or goals, with two control conditions. Outcomes were measured using eleven spatial insight problems. The results indicated that training that combined focus on barriers and assumptions was significantly more effective than all other conditions, supporting the proposition that recognizing and reinterpreting barriers may assist in surfacing the unwarranted assumptions that prevent problem solving.     

Prototypes are Key Heuristic Information in Insight Problem Solving

Evidence from a range of fields indicates that inventions are often inspired by drawing a parallel to solutions found in nature. However, the cognitive mechanism of this process is not well understood. The cognitive mechanism of heuristic prototype in scientific innovation was tested with 3 experiments. First, 84 historical accounts of important scientific innovations were collected and the prototype solution underlying them was extracted. Experiment 1 tested the validity of these materials and showed that knowledge of the prototype facilitated insight solutions. Experiment 2 and 3 suggested that activation of the prototype was indeed the critical element in the process of insight. Also, the mechanism of this activation was linked to the semantic similarity between the feature function of the prototype and the required function of the problem. In addition, Experiment 3 showed that participants who were better at excluding interference information more readily activated the relevant prototype. To sum up, the experiments suggested that activating a memory of the heuristic prototype was important in solving scientific innovation insight problems. Activating the feature function of right heuristic prototype and linking it by way of semantic similarity to the required function of the problem was the key mechanism people used to solve scientific insight problem.     

认知负荷对顿悟问题解决的影响

顿悟问题解决有许多影响因素,其中认知资源的耗费会影响到工作记忆的容量及加工效果,进而影响顿悟问题解决的效果.本实验通过三种呈现时间间隔,两种活动任务(高负荷任务和低负荷任务),组合为五种实验条件,探讨了源问题与靶问题呈现时间间隔与间隔期间活动任务(即不同的认知资源耗费程度)对关键启发信息激活的影响.结果表明:认知资源的耗费是影响顿悟问题解决的重要因素,认知资源耗费越多,关键启发信息越难激活;如果没有其他信息的干扰,源靶问题之间的时间问隔越长,有助于被试对源问题中的关键启发信息的思考与归纳,进而在解答靶问题过程中就越容易提取出关键启发信息.     

认知抑制——问题解决研究的新视角

抑制是一种领域一般(domain-general)的认知过程,它使儿童和成人能够抗拒习惯、自动化、诱惑、分心物或干扰从而适应存在冲突的情境(Diamond,2013)。抑制控制模型认为儿童或成人在问题解决中的失败并非是缺少相关知识与概念,而是抑制控制失败造成的。研究者采用负启动研究范式和脑成像技术在类皮杰任务、数学和科学问题解决中证实了认知抑制的作用。未来研究应把认知抑制与元认知的研究结合起来,探究认知抑制的发展轨迹及二者在问题解决中的相对重要性。同时,针对认知抑制训练的干预研究也值得重视。     

幼儿提问类型及策略对其问题解决的影响

该研究以69名5岁幼儿为被试,通过创设猜测物体的问题情境,以考察幼儿提问对其解决猜测物体的问题的影响.结果表明:(1)面对问题情境,幼儿运用提问解决问题的正确率显著高于不提问直接猜测的正确率.(2)幼儿运用两阶段整体策略和逐一排除策略提问来帮助其问题解决的效果好于直接猜测的效果.(3)幼儿提出混合类问题和外在感知类问题来帮助其解决猜测物体问题的效果好于提出内在属性类问题.     

竞争与情绪对顿悟的原型启发效应的影响

以汉字字谜为材料, 采用“原型学习-问题测试”范式, 考察不同竞争水平(高、中、低竞争强度和无竞争)情境下诱发的情绪效价(积极、中性和消极)对顿悟中的原型启发的影响。结果发现：1)竞争水平对字谜问题解决中的原型启发有显著影响, 低强度竞争水平最有利于靶字谜问题的解决, 中等强度和高强度下效果次之, 无竞争条件下效果最差; 2)诱发情绪对靶字谜问题解决的原型启发也有显著影响, 消极情绪和中性情绪下比积极情绪下靶字谜的正确率更高; 3)有无竞争与情绪效价之间的交互作用显著, 体现了竞争和情绪这两种动力相关因素在原型启发中的动力作用不是独立的。