组块紧密性导致组块破解困难:部件类型还是交错关系?
|
摘要
本研究的目的是澄清"组块紧密性为何导致组块破解困难"。研究基于汉字减法任务,也即让被试从一个源汉字中移动一个目标部件从而得到一个新汉字,在三个实验中检验了部件类型和交错关系的作用。结果显示,交错条件比非交错条件解答率更低反应时更长;而部件类型效应则主要体现在非交错条件的反应时指标上。结果提示,组块紧密性导致了组块破解困难,这主要取决于空间交错关系;相对的,部件类型作用较小。
Chunk decomposition is an important mechanism of re-structuring for overcoming impasse in insight problem solving. However, one basic issue remained unresolved is that why chunk tightness causes the difficulty of chunk decomposition. For this purpose, we examined the role of element type and crossed relation on chunk decomposition difficulty in three experiments based on the Chinese character subtracting task in which participants were asked to remove one target element from a source character in order to get a new character.In Experiment 1 and 2, the two variables including element type(character level vs. non-character level) and crossed relation(uncrossed relation vs. crossed relation) were manipulated in a within-subject design. Thirty-two volunteers(sixteen females; Average age: 20.38 ± 2.08 years) participated in Experiment 1, whereas thirty volunteers(fifteen females; Average age: 20.33 ± 1.73 years) participated in Experiment 2. All the participants were native Chinese, right-handed, with normal or corrected-to-normal vision. They got proper rewards after the experiments. The main difference between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 was stimuli presentation style: the source character and the removed element were simultaneously presented in Experiment 1 whereas the presentation of the removed element was followed by the source character in Experiment 2. There were approximately consistent results between the two experiments, which showed that relative to uncrossed relation, crossed relation led to lower solution rates and longer response times in chunk decomposition, regardless of the type of the to-be-removed element; Chunk decomposition in stroke level required longer response times compared to that in character level and this effect was limited to the uncrossed relation condition. For the condition of crossed relation, there were no differences or even different patterns.The main aim of Experiment 3 was to examine whether the effect of crossed relation on chunk decomposition difficulty still held in contrast to another type of non-crossed relation: left-right spatial relation. For the purpose, in Experiment 3, the two variables: element type(character level vs. stroke level) and spatial relation(left-right relation vs. top-down relation vs. crossed relation) were manipulated in a within-subject design in the Chinese character subtracting task with subsequent presentation style. Thirty volunteers(fifteen females; Average age: 20.63 ± 1.83 years) participated in Experiment 3. All the others were the same with Experiment 1 and 2. The effects of crossed relation and element type on chunk decomposition difficulty were replicated. Additionally, the solution rate was lower in the condition of crossed relation than that in uncrossed relation(whatever in the condition of left-right relation or top-down relation). There was no difference between the two latter conditions. In conclusion, we demonstrated that chunk tightness was a basic variable that can caused the difficulty of chunk decomposition, which was mainly determined by spatially crossed relation but weakly influenced by element type. Moreover, based on crossed relation, the effect of chunk tightness on the difficulty of chunk decomposition was robust across different paradigms as well as different styles of stimuli presentation(subsequent or simultaneous).
Chunk decomposition is an important mechanism of re-structuring for overcoming impasse in insight problem solving. However, one basic issue remained unresolved is that why chunk tightness causes the difficulty of chunk decomposition. For this purpose, we examined the role of element type and crossed relation on chunk decomposition difficulty in three experiments based on the Chinese character subtracting task in which participants were asked to remove one target element from a source character in order to get a new character.In Experiment 1 and 2, the two variables including element type(character level vs. non-character level) and crossed relation(uncrossed relation vs. crossed relation) were manipulated in a within-subject design. Thirty-two volunteers(sixteen females; Average age: 20.38 ± 2.08 years) participated in Experiment 1, whereas thirty volunteers(fifteen females; Average age: 20.33 ± 1.73 years) participated in Experiment 2. All the participants were native Chinese, right-handed, with normal or corrected-to-normal vision. They got proper rewards after the experiments. The main difference between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 was stimuli presentation style: the source character and the removed element were simultaneously presented in Experiment 1 whereas the presentation of the removed element was followed by the source character in Experiment 2. There were approximately consistent results between the two experiments, which showed that relative to uncrossed relation, crossed relation led to lower solution rates and longer response times in chunk decomposition, regardless of the type of the to-be-removed element; Chunk decomposition in stroke level required longer response times compared to that in character level and this effect was limited to the uncrossed relation condition. For the condition of crossed relation, there were no differences or even different patterns.The main aim of Experiment 3 was to examine whether the effect of crossed relation on chunk decomposition difficulty still held in contrast to another type of non-crossed relation: left-right spatial relation. For the purpose, in Experiment 3, the two variables: element type(character level vs. stroke level) and spatial relation(left-right relation vs. top-down relation vs. crossed relation) were manipulated in a within-subject design in the Chinese character subtracting task with subsequent presentation style. Thirty volunteers(fifteen females; Average age: 20.63 ± 1.83 years) participated in Experiment 3. All the others were the same with Experiment 1 and 2. The effects of crossed relation and element type on chunk decomposition difficulty were replicated. Additionally, the solution rate was lower in the condition of crossed relation than that in uncrossed relation(whatever in the condition of left-right relation or top-down relation). There was no difference between the two latter conditions. In conclusion, we demonstrated that chunk tightness was a basic variable that can caused the difficulty of chunk decomposition, which was mainly determined by spatially crossed relation but weakly influenced by element type. Moreover, based on crossed relation, the effect of chunk tightness on the difficulty of chunk decomposition was robust across different paradigms as well as different styles of stimuli presentation(subsequent or simultaneous).
引文
黄福荣,和美,罗劲.(2017).组块破解形态顿悟的脑认知机理.科学通报,62(31),3594-3604.
张忠炉,张嘉卉,宋欣欣,窦皓然,杨文龙,于龙等.(2016).P300与创造性组块分解.科学通报,61(22),2494-2501.
Cranford,E.A.,&Moss,J.(2012).Is insight always the same?A protocol analysis of insight in compound remote associate problems.The Journal of Problem Solving,4(2),128-153.
Knoblich,G.,Ohlsson,S.,Haider,H.,&Rhenius,D.(1999).Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,25(6),1534-1555.
Knoblich,G.,Ohlsson,S.,&Raney,G.E.(2001).An eye movement study of insight problem solving.Memory and Cognition,29(7),1000-1009.
Kounios,J.,&Beeman,M.(2014).The cognitive neuroscience of insight.Annual Review of Psychology,65(1),71-93.
Luo,J.,Niki,K.,&Knoblich,G.(2006).Perceptual contributions to problem solving:Chunk decomposition of Chinese characters.Brain Research Bulletin,70(4-6),430-443.
Moss,J.,Kotovsky,K.,&Cagan,J.(2011).The effect of incidental hints when problems are suspended before,during,or after an impasse.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,37(1),140-148.
Ohlsson,S.(1992).Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena.In K.J.Gilhooley(Ed.),Advances in the psychology of thinking(pp.1-44).London:Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Qiu,J.,Li,H.,Jou,J.,Liu,J.,Luo,Y.J.,Feng,T.Y.,et al.(2010).Neural correlates of the“Aha”experiences:Evidence from an fMRI Study of insight problem solving.Cortex,46(3),397-403.
Tang,X.C.,Pang,J.Y.,Nie,Q.Y.,Conci,M.,Luo,J.L.,&Luo,J.(2016).Probing the cognitive mechanism of mental representational change during chunk decomposition:A parametric fMRI study.Cerebral Cortex,26(7),2991-2999.
Wu,L.L.,Knoblich,G.,&Luo,J.(2013).The role of chunk tightness and chunk familiarity in problem solving:Evidence from ERPs and FMRI.Human Brain Mapping,34(5),1173-1186.
Wu,L.L.,Knoblich,G.,Wei,G.X.,&Luo,J.(2009).How perceptual processes help to generate new meaning:An EEG study of chunk decomposition in Chinese characters.Brain Research,1296,104-112.
Zhang,Z.L.,Yang,K.,Warren,C.M.,Zhao,G.,Li,P.,Lei,Y.,&Li,H.(2015).The influence of element type and crossed relation on the difficulty of chunk decomposition.Frontiers in Psychology,6,1025.
张忠炉,张嘉卉,宋欣欣,窦皓然,杨文龙,于龙等.(2016).P300与创造性组块分解.科学通报,61(22),2494-2501.
Cranford,E.A.,&Moss,J.(2012).Is insight always the same?A protocol analysis of insight in compound remote associate problems.The Journal of Problem Solving,4(2),128-153.
Knoblich,G.,Ohlsson,S.,Haider,H.,&Rhenius,D.(1999).Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,25(6),1534-1555.
Knoblich,G.,Ohlsson,S.,&Raney,G.E.(2001).An eye movement study of insight problem solving.Memory and Cognition,29(7),1000-1009.
Kounios,J.,&Beeman,M.(2014).The cognitive neuroscience of insight.Annual Review of Psychology,65(1),71-93.
Luo,J.,Niki,K.,&Knoblich,G.(2006).Perceptual contributions to problem solving:Chunk decomposition of Chinese characters.Brain Research Bulletin,70(4-6),430-443.
Moss,J.,Kotovsky,K.,&Cagan,J.(2011).The effect of incidental hints when problems are suspended before,during,or after an impasse.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,37(1),140-148.
Ohlsson,S.(1992).Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena.In K.J.Gilhooley(Ed.),Advances in the psychology of thinking(pp.1-44).London:Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Qiu,J.,Li,H.,Jou,J.,Liu,J.,Luo,Y.J.,Feng,T.Y.,et al.(2010).Neural correlates of the“Aha”experiences:Evidence from an fMRI Study of insight problem solving.Cortex,46(3),397-403.
Tang,X.C.,Pang,J.Y.,Nie,Q.Y.,Conci,M.,Luo,J.L.,&Luo,J.(2016).Probing the cognitive mechanism of mental representational change during chunk decomposition:A parametric fMRI study.Cerebral Cortex,26(7),2991-2999.
Wu,L.L.,Knoblich,G.,&Luo,J.(2013).The role of chunk tightness and chunk familiarity in problem solving:Evidence from ERPs and FMRI.Human Brain Mapping,34(5),1173-1186.
Wu,L.L.,Knoblich,G.,Wei,G.X.,&Luo,J.(2009).How perceptual processes help to generate new meaning:An EEG study of chunk decomposition in Chinese characters.Brain Research,1296,104-112.
Zhang,Z.L.,Yang,K.,Warren,C.M.,Zhao,G.,Li,P.,Lei,Y.,&Li,H.(2015).The influence of element type and crossed relation on the difficulty of chunk decomposition.Frontiers in Psychology,6,1025.