Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does solving insight-based problems differ from solving learning-based problems? Some evidence from an ERP study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We asked: “What are the similarities and differences in mathematical processing associated with solving learning-based and insight-based problems?” To answer this question, the ERP research procedure was employed with 69 male adolescent subjects who solved specially designed insight-based and learning-based tests. Solutions of insight-based problems were not related to the learning experience but rather to an “Aha!” moment. As learning-based problems, we employed tasks that require comparing the areas of geometric figures. The analysis was performed through the lens of mathematical performance in students who differed in the combination of levels of general giftedness (G) and excellence in school mathematics (EM). Alongside a quantitative analysis of the effects of EM and G factors on accuracy, reaction time, strength of the electrical potentials and their topographical distribution, we performed a qualitative comparison of the differences in the effects of EM and G factors associated with the two types of tests. We demonstrate that an analysis of the behavioral measures is insufficient and even misleading and argue that neurocognitive analysis is crucial for the understanding of the distinctions between mathematical processing associated with solving different types of problems. Analysis of the electrical potentials evoked when solving the two types of problems demonstrated that excellence in school mathematics affects learning-based problem solving but does not affect insight-based problem solving. Based on the observation of the increased activation of PO4–PO8 electrode site as related to G and EM factors, we further hypothesize that the ability to solve insight-based problems is a specific personal aptitude related mainly to general giftedness, while experience-based problem solving by experts involves insight-related components at the stage of problem understanding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. R., Betts, S., Ferris, J. L., & Fincham, J. M. (2011). Cognitive and metacognitive activity in mathematical problem solving: prefrontal and parietal patterns. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 11(1), 52–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arsalidou, M., & Taylor, M. J. (2011). Is 2 + 2 = 4? Meta-analyses of brain areas needed for numbers and calculations. Neuroimage, 54(3), 2382–2393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avancini, C., Soltész, F., & Szűcs, D. (2015). Separating stages of arithmetic verification: An ERP study with a novel paradigm. Neuropsychologia, 75, 322–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). Methods for investigating the neural components of insight. Methods, 42(1), 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunstein, V., Ischebeck, A., Brunner, C., Grabner, R. H., Stamenov, M., & Neuper, C. (2012). Investigating the influence of proficiency on semantic processing in bilinguals: An ERP and ERD/S analysis. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 72, 421–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colom, R., Karama, S., Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2010). Human intelligence and brain networks. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 12(4), 489–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Ponte, J. P. (2007). Investigations and explorations in the mathematics classroom. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(5–6), 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). The psychology of problem solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Desco, M., Navas-Sanchez, F. J., Sanchez-González, J., Reig, S., Robles, O., Franco, C., & Arango, C. (2011). Mathematically gifted adolescents use more extensive and more bilateral areas of the fronto-parietal network than controls during executive functioning and fluid reasoning tasks. Neuroimage, 57(1), 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 822–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15(6), 373–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabner, R. H., Neubauer, A. C., & Stern, E. (2006). Superior performance and neural efficiency: The impact of intelligence and expertise. Brain Research Bulletin, 69(4), 422–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55(4), 468–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthormsen, A. M., Fisher, K. J., Bassok, M., Osterhout, L., DeWolf, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (2015). Conceptual integration of arithmetic operations with real-world knowledge: Evidence from event-related potentials. Cognitive Science,. doi:10.1111/cogs.12238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajcak, G., Dunning, J. P., & Foti, D. (2009). Motivated and controlled attention to emotion: Time-course of the late positive potential. Clinical Neurology, 120(3), 505–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jausovec, N., & Jausovec, K. (2000). Correlations between ERP parameters and intelligence: A reconsideration. Biological Psychology, 55(2), 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4), 500–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juottonen, K., Revonsuo, A., & Lang, H. (1996). Dissimilar age influences on two ERP waveforms (LPC and N400) reflecting semantic context effect. Cognitive Brain Research, 4(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaan, E. (2007). Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(6), 571–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, G., Blum, W., Ferri, R. B., & Stillman, G. (Eds.). (2011). Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: ICTMA14 (Vol. 1). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. C., & Garavan, H. (2005). Human functional neuroimaging of brain changes associated with practice. Cerebral Cortex, 15(8), 1089–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren (translated from Russian by Teller, J.; edited by Kilpatrick, J., & Wirszup, I). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited by novel stimuli during sentence processinga. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 425(1), 236–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Yeong, S. H., Ng, S. F., Venkatraman, V., Graham, S., & Chee, M. W. (2010). Computing solutions to algebraic problems using a symbolic versus a schematic strategy. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(6), 591–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leikin, R. (2013). Evaluating mathematical creativity: The interplay between multiplicity and insight. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(4), 385–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leikin, R. (2014). Giftedness and high ability in mathematics. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Berlin: Springer. (electronic version).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leikin, R., Leikin, M., Waisman, I., & Shaul, S. (2013a). Effect of the presence of external representations on accuracy and reaction time in solving mathematical double-choice problems by students of different levels of instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1049–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leikin, M., Paz-Baruch, N., & Leikin, R. (2013b). Memory abilities in generally gifted and excelling-in-mathematics adolescents. Intelligence, 41(5), 566–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R. A. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching (pp. 317–336). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mai, X. Q., Luo, J., Wu, J. H., & Luo, Y. J. (2004). “Aha!” effects in a guessing riddle task: An event-related potential study. Human Brain Mapping, 22(4), 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and non-insight problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 15(3), 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubauer, A. C., & Fink, A. (2009). Intelligence and neural efficiency. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(7), 1004–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neville, H. J., Coffey, S. A., Holcomb, P. J., & Tallal, P. (1993). The neurobiology of sensory and language processing in language-impaired children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(2), 235–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Boyle, M. W. (2005). Some current findings on brain characteristics of the mathematically gifted adolescent. International Educational Journal, 6(2), 247–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olofsson, J. K., Nordin, S., Sequeira, H., & Polich, J. (2008). Affective picture processing: an integrative review of ERP findings. Biological Psychology, 77(3), 247–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paz-Baruch, N., Leikin, R., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Leikin, M. (2014). Speed of information processing in generally gifted and excelling in mathematics adolescents. High Abilities Studies, 25(2), 143–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paz-Baruch, N., Leikin, M., & Leikin, R. (2016). Visual processing in generally gifted and excelling in school mathematics adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted (forthcoming).

  • Polich, J. (2011). Neuropsychology of P300. In S. J. Luck & E. S. Kappenman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (pp. 159–188). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it. A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prescott, J., Gavrilescu, M., Cunnington, R., O’Boyle, M. W., & Egan, G. F. (2010). Enhanced brain connectivity in math-gifted adolescents: An fMRI study using mental rotation. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(4), 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, J., Li, H., Yang, D., Luo, Y., Li, Y., Wu, Z., & Zhang, Q. (2008). The neural basis of insight problem solving: An event-related potential study. Brain and Cognition, 68(1), 100–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2000). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime Computer Software (Version 1.0). Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, W., Liu, C., Zhang, X., Zhao, X., Zhang, J., Yuan, Y., & Chen, Y. (2013). Right hemispheric dominance of creative insight: an event-related potential study. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM, 29(3), 75–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E. A. (Ed.). (2003). Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives. New York: Routladge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, L. K. (2009). The measurement of giftedness. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 947–970). Amsterdam: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, K. M., Abad, E. V., & Donchin, E. (2000). On the search for the neurophysiological manifestation of recollective experience. Psychophysiology, 37(4), 494–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sriraman, B., & English, L. (Eds.). (2010). Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, J. R., & Newton, K. J. (2009). The nature and development of experts’ strategy flexibility for solving equations. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(5), 557–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, H. H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a more precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 15(3), 215–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Võ, M. L. H., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013). Differential electrophysiological signatures of semantic and syntactic scene processing. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1816–1823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waisman, I., Leikin, M., Shaul, S., & Leikin, R. (2014). Brain activity associated with translation between graphical and symbolic representations of functions in generally gifted and excelling in mathematics adolescents. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 669–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., Zhang, Q., Li, H., Qiu, J., Tu, S., & Yu, C. (2009). The time course of Chinese riddles solving: Evidence from an ERP study. Behavioural Brain Research, 199(2), 278–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, R. W. (2015). Toward an integrated theory of insight in problem solving. Thinking and Reasoning, 21(1), 5–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieth, M., & Burns, B. D. (2006). Incentives improve performance on both incremental and insight problem solving. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(8), 1378–1394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yerushalmy, M. (2009). Educational technology and curricular design: Promoting mathematical creativity for all students. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 101–113). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, M., Tian, F., Wu, X., Liao, S., & Qiu, J. (2011). The neural correlates of insight in Chinese verbal problems: An event related-potential study. Brain Research Bulletin, 84(3), 210–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z., Xing, Q., Li, H., Warren, C. M., Tang, Z., & Che, J. (2015). Chunk decomposition contributes to forming new mental representations: An ERP study. Neuroscience Letters, 598, 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y., Tu, S., Lei, M., Qiu, J., Ybarra, O., & Zhang, Q. (2011). The neural basis of breaking mental set: an event-related potential study. Experimental Brain Research, 208(2), 181–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (1990). Mathematical reasoning ability: Its structure and some aspects of its genetic transmission. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was made possible through the support of a Grant 1447 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. We are grateful to the University of Haifa for the generous support it has provided for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neuro-Cognitive Laboratory for the Investigation of Creativity, Ability and Giftedness, The Interdisciplinary RANGE Center, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Roza Leikin, Ilana Waisman & Mark Leikin

  2. Shaanan College, Haifa, Israel

    Ilana Waisman

Authors
  1. Roza Leikin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ilana Waisman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Leikin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roza Leikin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leikin, R., Waisman, I. & Leikin, M. Does solving insight-based problems differ from solving learning-based problems? Some evidence from an ERP study. ZDM Mathematics Education 48, 305–319 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0767-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0767-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation