The research of the role of interhemispheric interaction in problem solving: some behavioral and physiological results

965

Abstract

In this paper we describe the role of interhemispheric interaction in problem solving. We have some ex- perimental hypotheses as a result of analysis of various theoretical approaches of corpus callosum functions and role of interhemispheric interaction in creative problem solving. In our research we adhere to the theory of joint work of two hemispheres during creative problem solving and the complex theory of the corpus cal- losum function. In this study we used a method of parallel probe tasks (choice of two simple alternatives) that was performed at the same time with the main problem task (insight or routine). Interhemispheric interaction was complicated by contralateral probe tasks. It means, when subject solve insight or routine problem, probe task was presented in the left/right visual field and was performed by the left/right hand. We register brain activity (EEG) during the whole experiment. The results showed us the specificity of mechanism of insight solution compared to routine solution, and that the interhemispheric interaction plays a significant role in insight problem solving.

General Information

Keywords: interhemispheric interaction, insight, problem solving, thinking, EEG

Journal rubric: Psychology of Thinking

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2019120203

Funding. This work was supported by the grant of the RFBR №17-06-00672 and the grant of the Russian President MK-722.2017.6

For citation: Luneva A.R., Korovkin S.Y. The research of the role of interhemispheric interaction in problem solving: some behavioral and physiological results. Eksperimental'naâ psihologiâ = Experimental Psychology (Russia), 2019. Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 35–46. DOI: 10.17759/exppsy.2019120203. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

References

  1. Korovkin S.Y., Vladimirov I.Y., Savinova A.D. The dynamics of working memory load in insight problem solving // The Russian journal of cognitive science. 2014. Vol. 1 № 4. pp. 67—81.
  2. Lurija A.R. Vysshie korkovye funkcii cheloveka i ih narushenija pri lokal’nyh porazhenijah mozga. [Human higher cortical functions and their interruptions at local brain damages]. Moscow: Publ. Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1962. 426 p.
  3. Medyncev A.A. Vliyanie implicitnoj podskazki na avtomaticheskie process obrabotki informacii v zadache na reshenie anagram. Eksperimentalnaya psihologiya. 2017. Vol. 10. № 1. pp. 23—37. Doi:10-17759- exppsy-2017100103
  4. Ramachandran V.S. Mozg rasskazyvaet. Chto delaet nas ljud’mi. [The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for What Makes Us Human]. Moscow: Kar’era Press, 2012. 398 p.
  5. Smirnickaya A.V., Vladimirov I.U. Razlichiya v aktivnosti upravlyayushchego kontrolya pri reshenii algoritmizirovannyh i tvorcheskih zadach metod vyzvannyh potencialov. Shagi-steps. 2017. Vol. 3. № 1. pp. 98—108.
  6. Aziz-Zadeh L., Kaplan J.T., Iacoboni M. “Aha!”: The neural correlates of verbal insight solutions // Human brain mapping. 2009. Vol. 30 (3). pp. 908—916. doi:10.1002/hbm.20554
  7. Cohen M.S. Handedness questionnaire // Brain mapping. 2008. URL: http://www.brainmapping.org/ shared/Edinburgh.php.
  8. Banich M.T., Belger A. Interhemispheric interaction: how do the hemispheres divide and conquer a task? // Cortex. 1990. Vol. 26. № 1. pp. 77—94. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(13)80076-7
  9. Bowden E.M., Jung-Beeman M. Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems // Psychological science. 1998. Vol. 9. №6. pp. 435—440. doi:10.1111/1467- 9280.00082
  10. Bourne V.J. The divided visual field paradigm: Methodological considerations // Laterality. 2006. Vol. 11. № 4. P. 373—393. doi: 10.1080/13576500600633982
  11. Cook N.D. Homotopic callosal inhibition // Brain language. 1984. Vol. 23. № 1. pp. 116—125. doi:10.1016/0093-934X(84)90010-5
  12. Dietrich A. The cognitive neuroscience of creativity // Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2004. Vol. 11.№ 6. pp. 1011—1026. doi:10.3758/BF03196731
  13. Dietrich A., Kanso R. A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight // Psychological bulletin. 2010. Vol. 136. № 5. pp. 822—848. doi:10.1037/a0019749
  14. Fiore S.M., Schooler J.W. Right hemisphere contributions to creative problem solving: Converging evidence for divergent thinking // Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience / M. Beeman, C. Chiarello (Eds.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998. pp. 349—371.
  15. Fleck J.I. Working memory demands in insight versus analytic problem solving // European journal of cognitive psychology. 2008. Vol. 20 № 1. pp. 139—176. doi:10.1080/09541440601016954
  16. Friedman A., Polson M. C. Hemispheres as independent resource system: Limited-capacity processing and cerebral specialization // Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception and performance. 1981. Vol. 7. № 5. pp. 1031—1058. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.7.5.1031
  17. Galaburda A.M. Anatomic basis of cerebral dominance // Brain asymmetry / Davidson R.J., Hugdahl K. (eds.). Cambridge, MA. MIT Press. 1995. pp. 51—74.
  18. Gazzaniga M.S., Volpe B.T., Smylie C.S., Wilson D.H., LeDoux J.E. Plasticity in speech organization following commissurotomy // Brain. 1979. Vol. 102. № 4. pp. 805—816. doi:10.1093/brain/102.4.805
  19. Hellige J.B. Hemispheric asymmetry // Annual review of psychology. 1990. Vol. 41. № 1. pp. 55—80. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.000415
  20. Kounios J., Beeman M. The cognitive neuroscience of insight // Annual Review of Psychology. 2014. Vol. 65. № 1. pp. 71—93. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115154
  21. Lavric A., Forstmeier S., Rippon G. Differences in working memory involvement in analytical and creative tasks: An ERP study // NeuroReport. 2000. Vol. 11. № 8. pp. 1613—1618. doi: 10.1097/00001756- 200006050-00004
  22. Lundqvist M. et al. Gamma and beta bursts underlie working memory // Neuron. 2016. Vol. 90. № 1. pp. 152—164. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.02.028
  23. Petsche H. Approachestoverbal, visualandmusicalcreativityby EEGcoherenceanalysis// International journal of psychophysiology. 1996. Vol. 24. № 1—2. pp. 145—159. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8760(96)00050-5
  24. Razumnikova O. Creativity related cortex activity in the remote associates task // Brain research bulletin. 2007. Vol. 73. № 1—3. pp. 96—102. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2007.02.008
  25. Salvi C., Bowden E. M. Looking for creativity: Where do we look when we look for new ideas? // Frontiers in psychology. 2016. Vol. 7 (161). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00161
  26. Yazgan M.Y., Wexler B.E., Kinsbourne M., Peterson B., Leckman J.F. Functional significance of individual variations in callosal area // Neuropsy. 1995. Vol. 33. № 6. pp. 769-779. doi:10.1016/0028- 3932(95)00018-X

Information About the Authors

Alexandra R. Luneva, Graduate Student of the Department of General Psychology of the Faculty of Psychology, P. G. Demidov Yaroslavl State University, Yaroslavl, Russia, e-mail: lunevalexandra@mail.ru

Sergey Y. Korovkin, PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor of the Department of General Psychology, P. G. Demidov Yaroslavl State University, Yaroslavl, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7890-4366, e-mail: korovkin_su@list.ru

Metrics

Views

Total: 1771
Previous month: 28
Current month: 12

Downloads

Total: 965
Previous month: 16
Current month: 1