Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 730–737 | Cite as

Aha! Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere

  • Edward M. BowdenEmail author
  • Mark Jung-Beeman


In one experiment, we tested for an association between semantic activation in the right hemisphere (RH) and left hemisphere (LH) and the Aha! experience when people recognize solutions to insight-like problems. The compound remote associate problems used in this experiment sometimes evoke an Aha! experience and sometimes do not. On each trial, participants (N = 44) attempted to solve these problems and, after 7 sec, named a target word, made a solution decision, and rated their insight experience of recognizing the solution. As in prior studies, the participants demonstrated more solution priming for solutions presented to the left visual field-RH (lvf-RH) than for solutions presented to the right visual field-LH (rvf-LH). As was predicted, following unsolved problems the participants showed greater priming for solutions that they rated as evoking an insight experience on the subsequent solution decision than for solutions that did not evoke an insight experience. This association was stronger for solutions presented to the lvf-RH than for those presented to the rvf-LH. These results tie the subjective experience of insight to an objective measure-semantic priming-and suggest that people have an Aha! experience in part because they already had semantic activation that could lead them to recognize the solution quickly. We believe semantic activation in both hemispheres cooperatively contributes to problem solving, but weak solution activation that contributes to the Aha! experience is more likely to occur in the RH than in the LH.


Target Word Left Hemisphere Right Hemisphere Solution Priming Semantic Activation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Beeman, M. (1993). Semantic processing in the right hemisphere may contribute to drawing inferences from discourse.Brain & Language,44, 80–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.),Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 255–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Beeman, M. J., &Bowden, E. M. (2000). The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for yet-to-be-solved insight problems.Memory & Cognition,28, 1231–1241.Google Scholar
  4. Beeman, M. J., Bowden, E.M., &Gernsbacher, M. A. (2000). Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension.Brain & Language,71, 310–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beeman, M., &Chiarello, C. (1998).Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Beeman, M., Friedman, R. B., Grafman, J., Perez, E., Diamond, S., &Lindsay, M. B. (1994). Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,6, 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bihrle, A. M., Brownell, H. H., Powelson, J. A., &Gardner, H. (1986). Comprehension of humorous and non-humorous materials by left and right brain-damaged patients.Brain & Cognition,5, 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulescu, E., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., Frackowiak, R. S. J., &Frith, C. D. (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study.Brain,117, 1241–1253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowden, E. M. (1997). The effect of reportable and unreportable hints on anagram solution and the Aha! experience.Consciousness & Cognition,6, 545–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowden, E.M., &Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems.Psychological Science,9, 435–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (in press). Compound remote associate problems.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers.Google Scholar
  12. Bowers, K. S., Regehr, G., Balthazard, C., &Parker, K. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery.Cognitive Psychology,22, 72–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brownell, H.H., Michel, D., Powelson, J.A., &Gardner, H. (1983). Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to verbal humor in right hemisphere patients.Brain & Language,18, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brownell, H. H., Potter, H. H., Bihrle, A. M., &Gardner, H. (1986). Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients.Brain & Language,29, 310–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brownell, H.H., Potter, H.H., Michelow, D., &Gardner, H. (1984). Sensitivity to lexical denotation and connotation in brain-damaged patients: A double dissociation?Brain & Language,22, 310–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burgess, C., &Simpson, G. (1988). Hemispheric processing of ambiguous words.Brain & Language,33, 86–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chiarello, C. (1998). On codes of meaning and the meaning of codes: Semantic access and retrieval within and between hemispheres. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.),Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 141–160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Chiarello, C., Burgess, C., Richards, L., &Pollock, A. (1990). Semantic and associative priming in the cerebral hemispheres: Some words do, some words don’t, … sometimes, some places.Brain & Language,38, 75–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen, J., &Cohen, P. (1983).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Connor, L. T., Balota, D. A., &Neely, J. H. (1992). On the relation between feeling of knowing and lexical decision: Persistent subthreshold activation or topic familiarity?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 544–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davidson, J. E. (1995). The suddenness of insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),The nature of insight (pp. 125–156). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dominowski, R. L., &Dallob, P. I. (1995). Insight and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),The nature of insight (pp. 33–62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dorfman, J., Shames, V. A., &Kilhstrom, J. F. (1996). Intuition, incubation, and insight: Implicit cognition in problem solving. In G. Underwood (Ed.),Implicit cognition (pp. 257–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Faust, M., &Chiarello, C. (1998). Sentence context and lexical ambiguity resolution by the two hemispheres.Neuropsychologia,36, 827–836.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Faust, M., Kravetz, S., &Babkoff, H. (1993a). Hemisphericity and top-down processing of language.Brain & Language,44, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Faust, M., Kravetz, S., &Babkoff, H. (1993b). Hemispheric specialization or reading habits: Evidence from lexical decision research with Hebrew words and sentences.Brain & Language,44, 254–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Faust, M. E., &Gernsbacher, M.A. (1996). Cerebral mechanisms for suppression of inappropriate information during sentence comprehension.Brain & Language,53, 234–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fiore, S. M., &Schooler, J. W. (1998). Right hemisphere contributions to creative problem solving: Converging evidence for divergent thinking. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.),Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 349–371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Gick, M. L., &Lockhart, R. S. (1995). Cognitive and affective components of insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),The nature of insight (pp. 197–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Koivisto, M. (1997). Time course of semantic activation in the cerebral hemispheres.Neuropsychologia,35, 497–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Maier, N.R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans II: The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness.Journal of Comparative Psychology,12, 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process.Psychological Review,69, 220–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Metcalfe, J. (1986a). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 288–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Metcalfe, J. (1986b). Premonitions of insight predict impending error.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 623–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Metcalfe, J. &Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving.Memory & Cognition,15, 238–246.Google Scholar
  36. Nakagawa, A. (1991). Role of anterior and posterior attention networks in hemispheric asymmetries during lexical decisions.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,3, 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & J. W. Humphreys (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In M. Keane & K. Gilhooley (Eds.),Advances in the psychology of thinking (pp. 1–44). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  39. Robertson, D.A., Gernsbacher, M.A., Guidotti, S. J., Robertson, R.R.W., Irwin, W., Mock, B. J., &Campana, M.E. (2000). Functional neuroanatomy of the cognitive process of mapping during discourse comprehension.Psychological Science,11, 255–260.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Schooler, J. W., Fallshore, M., &Fiore, S. M. (1995). Epilogue: Putting insight into perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),The nature of insight(pp.559–587). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schooler, J.W., &Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S. M. Smith & T. B. Ward (Eds.),The creative cognition approach (pp. 97–133). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Schooler, J.W., Ohlsson, S., &Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,122, 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seifert, C. M., Meyer, D. E., Davidson, N., Patalano, A. L., &Yaniv, I. (1995). Demystification of cognitive insight: Opportunistic assimilation and the prepared-mind perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),The nature of insight (pp. 65–124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, S. M. (1995). Getting into and out of mental ruts: A theory of fixation, incubation, and insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),The nature of insight (pp. 229–252). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. St. George, M. Kutas, M., Martinez, A., &Sereno, M. I. (1999). Semantic integration in reading: Engagement of the right hemisphere during discourse processing.Brain,122, 1317–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Titone, D. (1998). Hemispheric differences in context sensitivity during lexical ambiguity resolution.Brain & Language,65, 361–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Winner, E., &Gardner, H. (1977). The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients.Brain,100, 719–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yaniv, I., &Meyer, D. E. (1987). Activation and metacognition of inaccessible stored information: Potential bases for incubation effects in problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthwestern UniversityEvanston

Personalised recommendations