| Home > Publications Database > Insight is not always the same: differences between true, false, and induced insights in the matchstick arithmetic task |
| Journal Article | DZNE-2021-00759 |
; ; ;
2021
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
Abingdon
This record in other databases:
Please use a persistent id in citations: doi:10.1080/20445911.2021.1912049
Abstract: There are diverging operationalizations of insight in experimental research, especially when comparing behavioral and neuroimaging research. The question arises how comparable these types of insight are. Here, we set out (1) to evaluate the usefulness of the matchstick arithmetic task for investigating cognitive and neural processes underlying insight-based problem solving, (2) to determine whether the Aha! Experience is diminished over a multitude of trials, and (3) to compare true (correctly solved), false (incorrectly solved), and induced insights. To this end, we analysed solution rates, response times, strength of the Aha! experience, and event-related potentials (ERPs). Our results showed that the Aha! experience was not weakened over 40 trials, but showed the importance of the time for a solution attempt. True, false, and induced insights differed with regard to Aha! ratings and ERP amplitude −2000 to −1500 ms before the response. Our study underscores the importance of the operationalization of insight.
|
The record appears in these collections: |