10 Everyday uses for Problem Solving Skills
- Problem Solving & Decision Making Real world training delivers real world results. Learn More
Many employers are recognizing the value and placing significant investments in developing the problem solving skills of their employees. While we often think about these skills in the work context, problem solving isn’t just helpful in the workplace. Here are 10 everyday uses for problem solving skills that can you may not have thought about
1. Stuck in traffic and late for work, again
With busy schedules and competing demands for your time, getting where you need to be on time can be a real challenge. When traffic backs up, problem solving skills can help you figure out alternatives to avoid congestion, resolve the immediate situation and develop a solution to avoid encountering the situation in the future.
2. What is that stain on the living room carpet?
Parents, pet owners and spouses face this situation all the time. The living room carpet was clean yesterday but somehow a mysterious stain has appeared and nobody is claiming it. In order to clean it effectively, first you need to figure out what it is. Problem solving can help you track down the culprit, diagnose the cause of the stain and develop an action plan to get your home clean and fresh again.
3. What is that smell coming from my teenage son’s room?
The problem solving parent knows from experience that the source of the funk is probably in the bottom of the closet or under the bed. The challenge is figuring out how to contain and mitigate the impact and develop an actionable solution to avoid the situation in the future.
4. I don’t think the car is supposed to make that thumping noise
As with many problems in the workplace, this may be a situation to bring in problem solving experts in the form of your trusted mechanic. If that isn’t an option, problem solving skills can be helpful to diagnose and assess the impact of the situation to ensure you can get where you need to be.
5. Why is the baby crying?
Is this just an incident that can be resolved with a diaper change, feeding or some sleep? Or is there an underlying problem like stress, illness or discomfort that requires further investigation and attention? Problem solving skills are a parent’s best friend.
6. My daughter has a science project – due tomorrow
Sometimes the challenge isn’t impact, its urgency. Problem solving skills can help you quickly assess the situation and develop an action plan to get that science project done and turned in on time.
7. What should I get my spouse for his/her birthday?
As with many problems, this one may not have a “right answer” or apparent solution. Its time to apply those problem solving skills to evaluate the effects of past decisions combined with current environmental signals and available resources to select the perfect gift to put a smile on your significant other’s face.
8. The office printer suddenly stopped working, and there are important documents that need to be printed urgently.
Uh oh, time to think quickly. There is an urgent situation that must be addressed to get things back to normal, a cause to be identified (what’s causing the printer issue), and an action plan to resolve it. Problem solving skills can help you avoid stress and ensure that your documents are printed on time.
9. Proposal deadline got moved up to this afternoon!
You’ve been working on that big proposal for weeks and its down to the final 3 days when your receive a call that the deadline has been moved up to today. Problem solving skills can help you figure out whether you will be able to meet the new deadline and how your approach may need to change.
10. What’s for dinner?
Whether you are planning to eat alone, with family or entertaining friends and colleagues, meal planning can be a cause of daily stress. Applying problem solving skills can put the dinner dilemma into perspective and help get the food on the table and keep everyone happy.
Problem Solving skills aren’t just for the workplace – they can be applied in your everyday life. Kepner-Tregoe can help you and your team develop your problem solving skills through a combination of training and consulting with our problem solving experts.
We are experts in:
For inquiries, details, or a proposal!
Subscribe to the KT Newsletter
By navigating the site, you agree to our Cookies Policy
- Social Anxiety Disorder
- Bipolar Disorder
- Kids Mental Health
- Therapy Center
- When To See a Therapist
- Types of Therapy
- Best Online Therapy
- Best Couples Therapy
- Best Family Therapy
- Managing Stress
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Understanding Emotions
- Healthy Relationships
- Relationships in 2023
- Student Resources
- Personality Types
- Verywell Mind Insights
- 2023 Verywell Mind 25
- Mental Health in the Classroom
- Editorial Process
- Meet Our Review Board
- Crisis Support
Overview of the Problem-Solving Mental Process
Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."
Rachel Goldman, PhD FTOS, is a licensed psychologist, clinical assistant professor, speaker, wellness expert specializing in eating behaviors, stress management, and health behavior change.
- Identify the Problem
- Define the Problem
- Form a Strategy
- Organize Information
- Allocate Resources
- Monitor Progress
- Evaluate the Results
Frequently Asked Questions
Problem-solving is a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.
The best strategy for solving a problem depends largely on the unique situation. In some cases, people are better off learning everything they can about the issue and then using factual knowledge to come up with a solution. In other instances, creativity and insight are the best options.
It is not necessary to follow problem-solving steps sequentially, It is common to skip steps or even go back through steps multiple times until the desired solution is reached.
In order to correctly solve a problem, it is often important to follow a series of steps. Researchers sometimes refer to this as the problem-solving cycle. While this cycle is portrayed sequentially, people rarely follow a rigid series of steps to find a solution.
The following steps include developing strategies and organizing knowledge.
1. Identifying the Problem
While it may seem like an obvious step, identifying the problem is not always as simple as it sounds. In some cases, people might mistakenly identify the wrong source of a problem, which will make attempts to solve it inefficient or even useless.
Some strategies that you might use to figure out the source of a problem include :
- Asking questions about the problem
- Breaking the problem down into smaller pieces
- Looking at the problem from different perspectives
- Conducting research to figure out what relationships exist between different variables
2. Defining the Problem
After the problem has been identified, it is important to fully define the problem so that it can be solved. You can define a problem by operationally defining each aspect of the problem and setting goals for what aspects of the problem you will address
At this point, you should focus on figuring out which aspects of the problems are facts and which are opinions. State the problem clearly and identify the scope of the solution.
3. Forming a Strategy
After the problem has been identified, it is time to start brainstorming potential solutions. This step usually involves generating as many ideas as possible without judging their quality. Once several possibilities have been generated, they can be evaluated and narrowed down.
The next step is to develop a strategy to solve the problem. The approach used will vary depending upon the situation and the individual's unique preferences. Common problem-solving strategies include heuristics and algorithms.
- Heuristics are mental shortcuts that are often based on solutions that have worked in the past. They can work well if the problem is similar to something you have encountered before and are often the best choice if you need a fast solution.
- Algorithms are step-by-step strategies that are guaranteed to produce a correct result. While this approach is great for accuracy, it can also consume time and resources.
Heuristics are often best used when time is of the essence, while algorithms are a better choice when a decision needs to be as accurate as possible.
4. Organizing Information
Before coming up with a solution, you need to first organize the available information. What do you know about the problem? What do you not know? The more information that is available the better prepared you will be to come up with an accurate solution.
When approaching a problem, it is important to make sure that you have all the data you need. Making a decision without adequate information can lead to biased or inaccurate results.
5. Allocating Resources
Of course, we don't always have unlimited money, time, and other resources to solve a problem. Before you begin to solve a problem, you need to determine how high priority it is.
If it is an important problem, it is probably worth allocating more resources to solving it. If, however, it is a fairly unimportant problem, then you do not want to spend too much of your available resources on coming up with a solution.
At this stage, it is important to consider all of the factors that might affect the problem at hand. This includes looking at the available resources, deadlines that need to be met, and any possible risks involved in each solution. After careful evaluation, a decision can be made about which solution to pursue.
6. Monitoring Progress
After selecting a problem-solving strategy, it is time to put the plan into action and see if it works. This step might involve trying out different solutions to see which one is the most effective.
It is also important to monitor the situation after implementing a solution to ensure that the problem has been solved and that no new problems have arisen as a result of the proposed solution.
Effective problem-solvers tend to monitor their progress as they work towards a solution. If they are not making good progress toward reaching their goal, they will reevaluate their approach or look for new strategies .
7. Evaluating the Results
After a solution has been reached, it is important to evaluate the results to determine if it is the best possible solution to the problem. This evaluation might be immediate, such as checking the results of a math problem to ensure the answer is correct, or it can be delayed, such as evaluating the success of a therapy program after several months of treatment.
Once a problem has been solved, it is important to take some time to reflect on the process that was used and evaluate the results. This will help you to improve your problem-solving skills and become more efficient at solving future problems.
A Word From Verywell
It is important to remember that there are many different problem-solving processes with different steps, and this is just one example. Problem-solving in real-world situations requires a great deal of resourcefulness, flexibility, resilience, and continuous interaction with the environment.
Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast
Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares how you can stop dwelling in a negative mindset.
Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts
You can become a better problem solving by:
- Practicing brainstorming and coming up with multiple potential solutions to problems
- Being open-minded and considering all possible options before making a decision
- Breaking down problems into smaller, more manageable pieces
- Asking for help when needed
- Researching different problem-solving techniques and trying out new ones
- Learning from mistakes and using them as opportunities to grow
It's important to communicate openly and honestly with your partner about what's going on. Try to see things from their perspective as well as your own. Work together to find a resolution that works for both of you. Be willing to compromise and accept that there may not be a perfect solution.
Take breaks if things are getting too heated, and come back to the problem when you feel calm and collected. Don't try to fix every problem on your own—consider asking a therapist or counselor for help and insight.
If you've tried everything and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix the problem, you may have to learn to accept it. This can be difficult, but try to focus on the positive aspects of your life and remember that every situation is temporary. Don't dwell on what's going wrong—instead, think about what's going right. Find support by talking to friends or family. Seek professional help if you're having trouble coping.
Davidson JE, Sternberg RJ, editors. The Psychology of Problem Solving . Cambridge University Press; 2003. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615771
Sarathy V. Real world problem-solving . Front Hum Neurosci . 2018;12:261. Published 2018 Jun 26. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00261
By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."
By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
Introduction to Problem Solving Skills
What is problem solving and why is it important.
The ability to solve problems is a basic life skill and is essential to our day-to-day lives, at home, at school, and at work. We solve problems every day without really thinking about how we solve them. For example: it’s raining and you need to go to the store. What do you do? There are lots of possible solutions. Take your umbrella and walk. If you don't want to get wet, you can drive, or take the bus. You might decide to call a friend for a ride, or you might decide to go to the store another day. There is no right way to solve this problem and different people will solve it differently.
Problem solving is the process of identifying a problem, developing possible solution paths, and taking the appropriate course of action.
Why is problem solving important? Good problem solving skills empower you not only in your personal life but are critical in your professional life. In the current fast-changing global economy, employers often identify everyday problem solving as crucial to the success of their organizations. For employees, problem solving can be used to develop practical and creative solutions, and to show independence and initiative to employers.
Throughout this case study you will be asked to jot down your thoughts in idea logs. These idea logs are used for reflection on concepts and for answering short questions. When you click on the "Next" button, your responses will be saved for that page. If you happen to close the webpage, you will lose your work on the page you were on, but previous pages will be saved. At the end of the case study, click on the "Finish and Export to PDF" button to acknowledge completion of the case study and receive a PDF document of your idea logs.
What Does Problem Solving Look Like?
The ability to solve problems is a skill, and just like any other skill, the more you practice, the better you get. So how exactly do you practice problem solving? Learning about different problem solving strategies and when to use them will give you a good start. Problem solving is a process. Most strategies provide steps that help you identify the problem and choose the best solution. There are two basic types of strategies: algorithmic and heuristic.
Algorithmic strategies are traditional step-by-step guides to solving problems. They are great for solving math problems (in algebra: multiply and divide, then add or subtract) or for helping us remember the correct order of things (a mnemonic such as “Spring Forward, Fall Back” to remember which way the clock changes for daylight saving time, or “Righty Tighty, Lefty Loosey” to remember what direction to turn bolts and screws). Algorithms are best when there is a single path to the correct solution.
But what do you do when there is no single solution for your problem? Heuristic methods are general guides used to identify possible solutions. A popular one that is easy to remember is IDEAL [ Bransford & Stein, 1993 ] :
- I dentify the problem
- D efine the context of the problem
- E xplore possible strategies
- A ct on best solution
IDEAL is just one problem solving strategy. Building a toolbox of problem solving strategies will improve your problem solving skills. With practice, you will be able to recognize and use multiple strategies to solve complex problems.
Watch the video
What is the best way to get a peanut out of a tube that cannot be moved? Watch a chimpanzee solve this problem in the video below [ Geert Stienissen, 2010 ].
Describe the series of steps you think the chimpanzee used to solve this problem.
- [Page 2: What does Problem Solving Look Like?] Describe the series of steps you think the chimpanzee used to solve this problem.
Think of an everyday problem you've encountered recently and describe your steps for solving it.
- [Page 2: What does Problem Solving Look Like?] Think of an everyday problem you've encountered recently and describe your steps for solving it.
Developing Problem Solving Processes
Problem solving is a process that uses steps to solve problems. But what does that really mean? Let's break it down and start building our toolbox of problem solving strategies.
What is the first step of solving any problem? The first step is to recognize that there is a problem and identify the right cause of the problem. This may sound obvious, but similar problems can arise from different events, and the real issue may not always be apparent. To really solve the problem, it's important to find out what started it all. This is called identifying the root cause .
Example: You and your classmates have been working long hours on a project in the school's workshop. The next afternoon, you try to use your student ID card to access the workshop, but discover that your magnetic strip has been demagnetized. Since the card was a couple of years old, you chalk it up to wear and tear and get a new ID card. Later that same week you learn that several of your classmates had the same problem! After a little investigation, you discover that a strong magnet was stored underneath a workbench in the workshop. The magnet was the root cause of the demagnetized student ID cards.
The best way to identify the root cause of the problem is to ask questions and gather information. If you have a vague problem, investigating facts is more productive than guessing a solution. Ask yourself questions about the problem. What do you know about the problem? What do you not know? When was the last time it worked correctly? What has changed since then? Can you diagram the process into separate steps? Where in the process is the problem occurring? Be curious, ask questions, gather facts, and make logical deductions rather than assumptions.
Watch Adam Savage from Mythbusters, describe his problem solving process [ ForaTv, 2010 ]. As you watch this section of the video, try to identify the questions he asks and the different strategies he uses.
Adam Savage shared many of his problem solving processes. List the ones you think are the five most important. Your list may be different from other people in your class—that's ok!
- [Page 3: Developing Problem Solving Processes] Adam Savage shared many of his problem solving processes. List the ones you think are the five most important.
“The ability to ask the right question is more than half the battle of finding the answer.” — Thomas J. Watson , founder of IBM
Voices From the Field: Solving Problems
In manufacturing facilities and machine shops, everyone on the floor is expected to know how to identify problems and find solutions. Today's employers look for the following skills in new employees: to analyze a problem logically, formulate a solution, and effectively communicate with others.
In this video, industry professionals share their own problem solving processes, the problem solving expectations of their employees, and an example of how a problem was solved.
Meet the Partners:
- Taconic High School in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is a comprehensive, fully accredited high school with special programs in Health Technology, Manufacturing Technology, and Work-Based Learning.
- Berkshire Community College in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, prepares its students with applied manufacturing technical skills, providing hands-on experience at industrial laboratories and manufacturing facilities, and instructing them in current technologies.
- H.C. Starck in Newton, Massachusetts, specializes in processing and manufacturing technology metals, such as tungsten, niobium, and tantalum. In almost 100 years of experience, they hold over 900 patents, and continue to innovate and develop new products.
- Nypro Healthcare in Devens, Massachusetts, specializes in precision injection-molded healthcare products. They are committed to good manufacturing processes including lean manufacturing and process validation.
Now that you have a couple problem solving strategies in your toolbox, let's practice. In this exercise, you are given a scenario and you will be asked to decide what steps you would take to identify and solve the problem.
Scenario: You are a new employee and have just finished your training. As your first project, you have been assigned the milling of several additional components for a regular customer. Together, you and your trainer, Bill, set up for the first run. Checking your paperwork, you gather the tools and materials on the list. As you are mounting the materials on the table, you notice that you didn't grab everything and hurriedly grab a few more items from one of the bins. Once the material is secured on the CNC table, you load tools into the tool carousel in the order listed on the tool list and set the fixture offsets.
Bill tells you that since this is a rerun of a job several weeks ago, the CAD/CAM model has already been converted to CNC G-code. Bill helps you download the code to the CNC machine. He gives you the go-ahead and leaves to check on another employee. You decide to start your first run.
What problems did you observe in the video?
- [Page 5: Making Decisions] What problems did you observe in the video?
- What do you do next?
- Try to fix it yourself.
- Ask your trainer for help.
As you are cleaning up, you think about what happened and wonder why it happened. You try to create a mental picture of what happened. You are not exactly sure what the end mill hit, but it looked like it might have hit the dowel pin. You wonder if you grabbed the correct dowel pins from the bins earlier.
You can think of two possible next steps. You can recheck the dowel pin length to make sure it is the correct length, or do a dry run using the CNC single step or single block function with the spindle empty to determine what actually happened.
- Check the dowel pins.
- Use the single step/single block function to determine what happened.
You notice that your trainer, Bill, is still on the floor and decide to ask him for help. You describe the problem to him. Bill asks if you know what the end mill ran into. You explain that you are not sure but you think it was the dowel pin. Bill reminds you that it is important to understand what happened so you can fix the correct problem. He suggests that you start all over again and begin with a dry run using the single step/single block function, with the spindle empty, to determine what it hit. Or, since it happened at the end, he mentions that you can also check the G-code to make sure the Z-axis is raised before returning to the home position.
- Run the single step/single block function.
- Edit the G-code to raise the Z-axis.
You finish cleaning up and check the CNC for any damage. Luckily, everything looks good. You check your paperwork and gather the components and materials again. You look at the dowel pins you used earlier, and discover that they are not the right length. As you go to grab the correct dowel pins, you have to search though several bins. For the first time, you are aware of the mess - it looks like the dowel pins and other items have not been put into the correctly labeled bins. You spend 30 minutes straightening up the bins and looking for the correct dowel pins.
Finally finding them, you finish setting up. You load tools into the tool carousel in the order listed on the tool list and set the fixture offsets. Just to make sure, you use the CNC single step/single block function, to do a dry run of the part. Everything looks good! You are ready to create your first part. The first component is done, and, as you admire your success, you notice that the part feels hotter than it should.
You wonder why? You go over the steps of the process to mentally figure out what could be causing the residual heat. You wonder if there is a problem with the CNC's coolant system or if the problem is in the G-code.
- Look at the G-code.
After thinking about the problem, you decide that maybe there's something wrong with the setup. First, you clean up the damaged materials and remove the broken tool. You check the CNC machine carefully for any damage. Luckily, everything looks good. It is time to start over again from the beginning.
You again check your paperwork and gather the tools and materials on the setup sheet. After securing the new materials, you use the CNC single step/single block function with the spindle empty, to do a dry run of the part. You watch carefully to see if you can figure out what happened. It looks to you like the spindle barely misses hitting the dowel pin. You determine that the end mill was broken when it hit the dowel pin while returning to the start position.
After conducting a dry run using the single step/single block function, you determine that the end mill was damaged when it hit the dowel pin on its return to the home position. You discuss your options with Bill. Together, you decide the best thing to do would be to edit the G-code and raise the Z-axis before returning to home. You open the CNC control program and edit the G-code. Just to make sure, you use the CNC single step/single block function, to do another dry run of the part. You are ready to create your first part. It works. You first part is completed. Only four more to go.
As you are cleaning up, you notice that the components are hotter than you expect and the end mill looks more worn than it should be. It dawns on you that while you were milling the component, the coolant didn't turn on. You wonder if it is a software problem in the G-code or hardware problem with the CNC machine.
It's the end of the day and you decide to finish the rest of the components in the morning.
- You decide to look at the G-code in the morning.
- You leave a note on the machine, just in case.
You decide that the best thing to do would be to edit the G-code and raise the Z-axis of the spindle before it returns to home. You open the CNC control program and edit the G-code.
While editing the G-code to raise the Z-axis, you notice that the coolant is turned off at the beginning of the code and at the end of the code. The coolant command error caught your attention because your coworker, Mark, mentioned having a similar issue during lunch. You change the coolant command to turn the mist on.
- You decide to talk with your supervisor.
- You discuss what happened with a coworker over lunch.
As you reflect on the residual heat problem, you think about the machining process and the factors that could have caused the issue. You try to think of anything and everything that could be causing the issue. Are you using the correct tool for the specified material? Are you using the specified material? Is it running at the correct speed? Is there enough coolant? Are there chips getting in the way?
Wait, was the coolant turned on? As you replay what happened in your mind, you wonder why the coolant wasn't turned on. You decide to look at the G-code to find out what is going on.
From the milling machine computer, you open the CNC G-code. You notice that there are no coolant commands. You add them in and on the next run, the coolant mist turns on and the residual heat issues is gone. Now, its on to creating the rest of the parts.
Have you ever used brainstorming to solve a problem? Chances are, you've probably have, even if you didn't realize it.
You notice that your trainer, Bill, is on the floor and decide to ask him for help. You describe the problem with the end mill breaking, and how you discovered that items are not being returned to the correctly labeled bins. You think this caused you to grab the incorrect length dowel pins on your first run. You have sorted the bins and hope that the mess problem is fixed. You then go on to tell Bill about the residual heat issue with the completed part.
Together, you go to the milling machine. Bill shows you how to check the oil and coolant levels. Everything looks good at the machine level. Next, on the CNC computer, you open the CNC G-code. While looking at the code, Bill points out that there are no coolant commands. Bill adds them in and when you rerun the program, it works.
Bill is glad you mentioned the problem to him. You are the third worker to mention G-code issues over the last week. You noticed the coolant problems in your G-code, John noticed a Z-axis issue in his G-code, and Sam had issues with both the Z-axis and the coolant. Chances are, there is a bigger problem and Bill will need to investigate the root cause .
Talking with Bill, you discuss the best way to fix the problem. Bill suggests editing the G-code to raise the Z-axis of the spindle before it returns to its home position. You open the CNC control program and edit the G-code. Following the setup sheet, you re-setup the job and use the CNC single step/single block function, to do another dry run of the part. Everything looks good, so you run the job again and create the first part. It works. Since you need four of each component, you move on to creating the rest of them before cleaning up and leaving for the day.
It's a new day and you have new components to create. As you are setting up, you go in search of some short dowel pins. You discover that the bins are a mess and components have not been put away in the correctly labeled bins. You wonder if this was the cause of yesterday's problem. As you reorganize the bins and straighten up the mess, you decide to mention the mess issue to Bill in your afternoon meeting.
You describe the bin mess and using the incorrect length dowels to Bill. He is glad you mentioned the problem to him. You are not the first person to mention similar issues with tools and parts not being put away correctly. Chances are there is a bigger safety issue here that needs to be addressed in the next staff meeting.
In any workplace, following proper safety and cleanup procedures is always important. This is especially crucial in manufacturing where people are constantly working with heavy, costly and sometimes dangerous equipment. When issues and problems arise, it is important that they are addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Effective communication is an important tool because it can prevent problems from recurring, avoid injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost, and save money.
You now know that the end mill was damaged when it hit the dowel pin. It seems to you that the easiest thing to do would be to edit the G-code and raise the Z-axis position of the spindle before it returns to the home position. You open the CNC control program and edit the G-code, raising the Z-axis. Starting over, you follow the setup sheet and re-setup the job. This time, you use the CNC single step/single block function, to do another dry run of the part. Everything looks good, so you run the job again and create the first part.
At the end of the day, you are reviewing your progress with your trainer, Bill. After you describe the day's events, he reminds you to always think about safety and the importance of following work procedures. He decides to bring the issue up in the next morning meeting as a reminder to everyone.
In any workplace, following proper procedures (especially those that involve safety) is always important. This is especially crucial in manufacturing where people are constantly working with heavy, costly, and sometimes dangerous equipment. When issues and problems arise, it is important that they are addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Effective communication is an important tool because it can prevent problems from recurring, avoid injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost, and save money. One tool to improve communication is the morning meeting or huddle.
The next morning, you check the G-code to determine what is wrong with the coolant. You notice that the coolant is turned off at the beginning of the code and also at the end of the code. This is strange. You change the G-code to turn the coolant on at the beginning of the run and off at the end. This works and you create the rest of the parts.
Throughout the day, you keep wondering what caused the G-code error. At lunch, you mention the G-code error to your coworker, John. John is not surprised. He said that he encountered a similar problem earlier this week. You decide to talk with your supervisor the next time you see him.
You are in luck. You see your supervisor by the door getting ready to leave. You hurry over to talk with him. You start off by telling him about how you asked Bill for help. Then you tell him there was a problem and the end mill was damaged. You describe the coolant problem in the G-code. Oh, and by the way, John has seen a similar problem before.
Your supervisor doesn't seem overly concerned, errors happen. He tells you "Good job, I am glad you were able to fix the issue." You are not sure whether your supervisor understood your explanation of what happened or that it had happened before.
The challenge of communicating in the workplace is learning how to share your ideas and concerns. If you need to tell your supervisor that something is not going well, it is important to remember that timing, preparation, and attitude are extremely important.
It is the end of your shift, but you want to let the next shift know that the coolant didn't turn on. You do not see your trainer or supervisor around. You decide to leave a note for the next shift so they are aware of the possible coolant problem. You write a sticky note and leave it on the monitor of the CNC control system.
How effective do you think this solution was? Did it address the problem?
In this scenario, you discovered several problems with the G-code that need to be addressed. When issues and problems arise, it is important that they are addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Effective communication is an important tool because it can prevent problems from recurring and avoid injury to personnel. The challenge of communicating in the workplace is learning how and when to share your ideas and concerns. If you need to tell your co-workers or supervisor that there is a problem, it is important to remember that timing and the method of communication are extremely important.
You are able to fix the coolant problem in the G-code. While you are glad that the problem is fixed, you are worried about why it happened in the first place. It is important to remember that if a problem keeps reappearing, you may not be fixing the right problem. You may only be addressing the symptoms.
You decide to talk to your trainer. Bill is glad you mentioned the problem to him. You are the third worker to mention G-code issues over the last week. You noticed the coolant problems in your G-code, John noticed a Z-axis issue in his G-code, and Sam had issues with both the Z-axis and the coolant. Chances are, there is a bigger problem and Bill will need to investigate the root cause .
Over lunch, you ask your coworkers about the G-code problem and what may be causing the error. Several people mention having similar problems but do not know the cause.
You have now talked to three coworkers who have all experienced similar coolant G-code problems. You make a list of who had the problem, when they had the problem, and what each person told you.
When you see your supervisor later that afternoon, you are ready to talk with him. You describe the problem you had with your component and the damaged bit. You then go on to tell him about talking with Bill and discovering the G-code issue. You show him your notes on your coworkers' coolant issues, and explain that you think there might be a bigger problem.
You supervisor thanks you for your initiative in identifying this problem. It sounds like there is a bigger problem and he will need to investigate the root cause. He decides to call a team huddle to discuss the issue, gather more information, and talk with the team about the importance of communication.
Root Cause Analysis
Root cause analysis ( RCA ) is a method of problem solving that identifies the underlying causes of an issue. Root cause analysis helps people answer the question of why the problem occurred in the first place. RCA uses clear cut steps in its associated tools, like the "5 Whys Analysis" and the "Cause and Effect Diagram," to identify the origin of the problem, so that you can:
- Determine what happened.
- Determine why it happened.
- Fix the problem so it won’t happen again.
RCA works under the idea that systems and events are connected. An action in one area triggers an action in another, and another, and so on. By tracing back these actions, you can discover where the problem started and how it developed into the problem you're now facing. Root cause analysis can prevent problems from recurring, reduce injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost and save money. There are many different RCA techniques available to determine the root cause of a problem. These are just a few:
- Root Cause Analysis Tools
- 5 Whys Analysis
- Fishbone or Cause and Effect Diagram
- Pareto Analysis
How Huddles Work
Communication is a vital part of any setting where people work together. Effective communication helps employees and managers form efficient teams. It builds trusts between employees and management, and reduces unnecessary competition because each employee knows how their part fits in the larger goal.
One tool that management can use to promote communication in the workplace is the huddle . Just like football players on the field, a huddle is a short meeting where everyone is standing in a circle. A daily team huddle ensures that team members are aware of changes to the schedule, reiterated problems and safety issues, and how their work impacts one another. When done right, huddles create collaboration, communication, and accountability to results. Impromptu huddles can be used to gather information on a specific issue and get each team member's input.
The most important thing to remember about huddles is that they are short, lasting no more than 10 minutes, and their purpose is to communicate and identify. In essence, a huddle’s purpose is to identify priorities, communicate essential information, and discover roadblocks to productivity.
Who uses huddles? Many industries and companies use daily huddles. At first thought, most people probably think of hospitals and their daily patient update meetings, but lots of managers use daily meetings to engage their employees. Here are a few examples:
- Brian Scudamore, CEO of 1-800-Got-Junk? , uses the daily huddle as an operational tool to take the pulse of his employees and as a motivational tool. Watch a morning huddle meeting .
- Fusion OEM, an outsourced manufacturing and production company. What do employees take away from the daily huddle meeting .
- Biz-Group, a performance consulting group. Tips for a successful huddle .
One tool that can be useful in problem solving is brainstorming . Brainstorming is a creativity technique designed to generate a large number of ideas for the solution to a problem. The method was first popularized in 1953 by Alex Faickney Osborn in the book Applied Imagination . The goal is to come up with as many ideas as you can in a fixed amount of time. Although brainstorming is best done in a group, it can be done individually. Like most problem solving techniques, brainstorming is a process.
- Define a clear objective.
- Have an agreed a time limit.
- During the brainstorming session, write down everything that comes to mind, even if the idea sounds crazy.
- If one idea leads to another, write down that idea too.
- Combine and refine ideas into categories of solutions.
- Assess and analyze each idea as a potential solution.
When used during problem solving, brainstorming can offer companies new ways of encouraging staff to think creatively and improve production. Brainstorming relies on team members' diverse experiences, adding to the richness of ideas explored. This means that you often find better solutions to the problems. Team members often welcome the opportunity to contribute ideas and can provide buy-in for the solution chosen—after all, they are more likely to be committed to an approach if they were involved in its development. What's more, because brainstorming is fun, it helps team members bond.
- Watch Peggy Morgan Collins, a marketing executive at Power Curve Communications discuss How to Stimulate Effective Brainstorming .
- Watch Kim Obbink, CEO of Filter Digital, a digital content company, and her team share their top five rules for How to Effectively Generate Ideas .
Importance of Good Communication and Problem Description
Communication is one of the most frequent activities we engage in on a day-to-day basis. At some point, we have all felt that we did not effectively communicate an idea as we would have liked. The key to effective communication is preparation. Rather than attempting to haphazardly improvise something, take a few minutes and think about what you want say and how you will say it. If necessary, write yourself a note with the key points or ideas in the order you want to discuss them. The notes can act as a reminder or guide when you talk to your supervisor.
Tips for clear communication of an issue:
- Provide a clear summary of your problem. Start at the beginning, give relevant facts, timelines, and examples.
- Avoid including your opinion or personal attacks in your explanation.
- Avoid using words like "always" or "never," which can give the impression that you are exaggerating the problem.
- If this is an ongoing problem and you have collected documentation, give it to your supervisor once you have finished describing the problem.
- Remember to listen to what's said in return; communication is a two-way process.
Not all communication is spoken. Body language is nonverbal communication that includes your posture, your hands and whether you make eye contact. These gestures can be subtle or overt, but most importantly they communicate meaning beyond what is said. When having a conversation, pay attention to how you stand. A stiff position with arms crossed over your chest may imply that you are being defensive even if your words state otherwise. Shoving your hands in your pockets when speaking could imply that you have something to hide. Be wary of using too many hand gestures because this could distract listeners from your message.
The challenge of communicating in the workplace is learning how and when to share your ideas or concerns. If you need to tell your supervisor or co-worker about something that is not going well, keep in mind that good timing and good attitude will go a long way toward helping your case.
Like all skills, effective communication needs to be practiced. Toastmasters International is perhaps the best known public speaking organization in the world. Toastmasters is open to anyone who wish to improve their speaking skills and is willing to put in the time and effort to do so. To learn more, visit Toastmasters International .
Methods of Communication
Communication of problems and issues in any workplace is important, particularly when safety is involved. It is therefore crucial in manufacturing where people are constantly working with heavy, costly, and sometimes dangerous equipment. As issues and problems arise, they need to be addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Effective communication is an important skill because it can prevent problems from recurring, avoid injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost and save money.
There are many different ways to communicate: in person, by phone, via email, or written. There is no single method that fits all communication needs, each one has its time and place.
In person: In the workplace, face-to-face meetings should be utilized whenever possible. Being able to see the person you need to speak to face-to-face gives you instant feedback and helps you gauge their response through their body language. Be careful of getting sidetracked in conversation when you need to communicate a problem.
Email: Email has become the communication standard for most businesses. It can be accessed from almost anywhere and is great for things that don’t require an immediate response. Email is a great way to communicate non-urgent items to large amounts of people or just your team members. One thing to remember is that most people's inboxes are flooded with emails every day and unless they are hyper vigilant about checking everything, important items could be missed. For issues that are urgent, especially those around safety, email is not always be the best solution.
Phone: Phone calls are more personal and direct than email. They allow us to communicate in real time with another person, no matter where they are. Not only can talking prevent miscommunication, it promotes a two-way dialogue. You don’t have to worry about your words being altered or the message arriving on time. However, mobile phone use and the workplace don't always mix. In particular, using mobile phones in a manufacturing setting can lead to a variety of problems, cause distractions, and lead to serious injury.
Written: Written communication is appropriate when detailed instructions are required, when something needs to be documented, or when the person is too far away to easily speak with over the phone or in person.
There is no "right" way to communicate, but you should be aware of how and when to use the appropriate form of communication for your situation. When deciding the best way to communicate with a co-worker or manager, put yourself in their shoes, and think about how you would want to learn about the issue. Also, consider what information you would need to know to better understand the issue. Use your good judgment of the situation and be considerate of your listener's viewpoint.
Did you notice any other potential problems in the previous exercise?
- [Page 6:] Did you notice any other potential problems in the previous exercise?
Summary of Strategies
In this exercise, you were given a scenario in which there was a problem with a component you were creating on a CNC machine. You were then asked how you wanted to proceed. Depending on your path through this exercise, you might have found an easy solution and fixed it yourself, asked for help and worked with your trainer, or discovered an ongoing G-code problem that was bigger than you initially thought.
When issues and problems arise, it is important that they are addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Communication is an important tool because it can prevent problems from recurring, avoid injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost, and save money. Although, each path in this exercise ended with a description of a problem solving tool for your toolbox, the first step is always to identify the problem and define the context in which it happened.
There are several strategies that can be used to identify the root cause of a problem. Root cause analysis (RCA) is a method of problem solving that helps people answer the question of why the problem occurred. RCA uses a specific set of steps, with associated tools like the “5 Why Analysis" or the “Cause and Effect Diagram,” to identify the origin of the problem, so that you can:
Once the underlying cause is identified and the scope of the issue defined, the next step is to explore possible strategies to fix the problem.
If you are not sure how to fix the problem, it is okay to ask for help. Problem solving is a process and a skill that is learned with practice. It is important to remember that everyone makes mistakes and that no one knows everything. Life is about learning. It is okay to ask for help when you don’t have the answer. When you collaborate to solve problems you improve workplace communication and accelerates finding solutions as similar problems arise.
One tool that can be useful for generating possible solutions is brainstorming . Brainstorming is a technique designed to generate a large number of ideas for the solution to a problem. The method was first popularized in 1953 by Alex Faickney Osborn in the book Applied Imagination. The goal is to come up with as many ideas as you can, in a fixed amount of time. Although brainstorming is best done in a group, it can be done individually.
Depending on your path through the exercise, you may have discovered that a couple of your coworkers had experienced similar problems. This should have been an indicator that there was a larger problem that needed to be addressed.
In any workplace, communication of problems and issues (especially those that involve safety) is always important. This is especially crucial in manufacturing where people are constantly working with heavy, costly, and sometimes dangerous equipment. When issues and problems arise, it is important that they be addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Effective communication is an important tool because it can prevent problems from recurring, avoid injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost and save money.
One strategy for improving communication is the huddle . Just like football players on the field, a huddle is a short meeting with everyone standing in a circle. A daily team huddle is a great way to ensure that team members are aware of changes to the schedule, any problems or safety issues are identified and that team members are aware of how their work impacts one another. When done right, huddles create collaboration, communication, and accountability to results. Impromptu huddles can be used to gather information on a specific issue and get each team member's input.
To learn more about different problem solving strategies, choose an option below. These strategies accompany the outcomes of different decision paths in the problem solving exercise.
- View Problem Solving Strategies Select a strategy below... Root Cause Analysis How Huddles Work Brainstorming Importance of Good Problem Description Methods of Communication
Communication is one of the most frequent activities we engage in on a day-to-day basis. At some point, we have all felt that we did not effectively communicate an idea as we would have liked. The key to effective communication is preparation. Rather than attempting to haphazardly improvise something, take a few minutes and think about what you want say and how you will say it. If necessary, write yourself a note with the key points or ideas in the order you want to discuss them. The notes can act as a reminder or guide during your meeting.
- Provide a clear summary of the problem. Start at the beginning, give relevant facts, timelines, and examples.
In person: In the workplace, face-to-face meetings should be utilized whenever possible. Being able to see the person you need to speak to face-to-face gives you instant feedback and helps you gauge their response in their body language. Be careful of getting sidetracked in conversation when you need to communicate a problem.
There is no "right" way to communicate, but you should be aware of how and when to use the appropriate form of communication for the situation. When deciding the best way to communicate with a co-worker or manager, put yourself in their shoes, and think about how you would want to learn about the issue. Also, consider what information you would need to know to better understand the issue. Use your good judgment of the situation and be considerate of your listener's viewpoint.
"Never try to solve all the problems at once — make them line up for you one-by-one.” — Richard Sloma
Problem Solving: An Important Job Skill
Problem solving improves efficiency and communication on the shop floor. It increases a company's efficiency and profitability, so it's one of the top skills employers look for when hiring new employees. Recent industry surveys show that employers consider soft skills, such as problem solving, as critical to their business’s success.
The 2011 survey, "Boiling Point? The skills gap in U.S. manufacturing ," polled over a thousand manufacturing executives who reported that the number one skill deficiency among their current employees is problem solving, which makes it difficult for their companies to adapt to the changing needs of the industry.
In this video, industry professionals discuss their expectations and present tips for new employees joining the manufacturing workforce.
- [Quick Summary: Question1] What are two things you learned in this case study?
- What question(s) do you still have about the case study?
- [Quick Summary: Question2] What question(s) do you still have about the case study?
- Is there anything you would like to learn more about with respect to this case study?
- [Quick Summary: Question3] Is there anything you would like to learn more about with respect to this case study?
- Reference Manager
- Simple TEXT file
People also looked at
Hypothesis and theory article, real world problem-solving.
- Human-Robot Interaction Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States
Real world problem-solving (RWPS) is what we do every day. It requires flexibility, resilience, resourcefulness, and a certain degree of creativity. A crucial feature of RWPS is that it involves continuous interaction with the environment during the problem-solving process. In this process, the environment can be seen as not only a source of inspiration for new ideas but also as a tool to facilitate creative thinking. The cognitive neuroscience literature in creativity and problem-solving is extensive, but it has largely focused on neural networks that are active when subjects are not focused on the outside world, i.e., not using their environment. In this paper, I attempt to combine the relevant literature on creativity and problem-solving with the scattered and nascent work in perceptually-driven learning from the environment. I present my synthesis as a potential new theory for real world problem-solving and map out its hypothesized neural basis. I outline some testable predictions made by the model and provide some considerations and ideas for experimental paradigms that could be used to evaluate the model more thoroughly.
In the Apollo 13 space mission, astronauts together with ground control had to overcome several challenges to bring the team safely back to Earth ( Lovell and Kluger, 2006 ). One of these challenges was controlling carbon dioxide levels onboard the space craft: “For 2 days straight [they] had worked on how to jury-rig the Odysseys canisters to the Aquarius's life support system. Now, using materials known to be available onboard the spacecraft—a sock, a plastic bag, the cover of a flight manual, lots of duct tape, and so on—the crew assembled a strange contraption and taped it into place. Carbon dioxide levels immediately began to fall into the safe range” ( Team, 1970 ; Cass, 2005 ).
The success of Apollo 13's recovery from failure is often cited as a glowing example of human resourcefulness and inventiveness alongside more well-known inventions and innovations over the course of human history. However, this sort of inventive capability is not restricted to a few creative geniuses, but an ability present in all of us, and exemplified in the following mundane example. Consider a situation when your only suit is covered in lint and you do not own a lint remover. You see a roll of duct tape, and being resourceful you reason that it might be a good substitute. You then solve the problem of lint removal by peeling a full turn's worth of tape and re-attaching it backwards onto the roll to expose the sticky side all around the roll. By rolling it over your suit, you can now pick up all the lint.
In both these examples (historic as well as everyday), we see evidence for our innate ability to problem-solve in the real world. Solving real world problems in real time given constraints posed by one's environment are crucial for survival. At the core of this skill is our mental capability to get out of “sticky situations” or impasses, i.e., difficulties that appear unexpectedly as impassable roadblocks to solving the problem at hand. But, what are the cognitive processes that enable a problem solver to overcome such impasses and arrive at a solution, or at least a set of promising next steps?
A central aspect of this type of real world problem solving, is the role played by the solver's surrounding environment during the problem-solving process. Is it possible that interaction with one's environment can facilitate creative thinking? The answer to this question seems somewhat obvious when one considers the most famous anecdotal account of creative problem solving, namely that of Archimedes of Syracuse. During a bath, he found a novel way to check if the King's crown contained non-gold impurities. The story has traditionally been associated with the so-called “Eureka moment,” the sudden affective experience when a solution to a particularly thorny problem emerges. In this paper, I want to temporarily turn our attention away from the specific “aha!” experience itself and take particular note that Archimedes made this discovery, not with his eyes closed at a desk, but in a real-world context of a bath 1 . The bath was not only a passive, relaxing environment for Archimedes, but also a specific source of inspiration. Indeed it was his noticing the displacement of water that gave him a specific methodology for measuring the purity of the crown; by comparing how much water a solid gold bar of the same weight would displace as compared with the crown. This sort of continuous environmental interaction was present when the Apollo 13 engineers discovered their life-saving solution, and when you solved the suit-lint-removal problem with duct tape.
The neural mechanisms underlying problem-solving have been extensively studied in the literature, and there is general agreement about the key functional networks and nodes involved in various stages of problem-solving. In addition, there has been a great deal of work in studying the neural basis for creativity and insight problem solving, which is associated with the sudden emergence of solutions. However, in the context of problem-solving, creativity, and insight have been researched as largely an internal process without much interaction with and influence from the external environment ( Wegbreit et al., 2012 ; Abraham, 2013 ; Kounios and Beeman, 2014 ) 2 . Thus, there are open questions of what role the environment plays during real world problem-solving (RWPS) and how the brain enables the assimilation of novel items during these external interactions.
In this paper, I synthesize the literature on problem-solving, creativity and insight, and particularly focus on how the environment can inform RWPS. I explore three environmentally-informed mechanisms that could play a critical role: (1) partial-cue driven context-shifting, (2) heuristic prototyping and learning novel associations, and (3) learning novel physical inferences. I begin first with some intuitions about real world problem solving, that might help ground this discussion and providing some key distinctions from more traditional problem solving research. Then, I turn to a review of the relevant literature on problem-solving, creativity, and insight first, before discussing the three above-mentioned environmentally-driven mechanisms. I conclude with a potential new model and map out its hypothesized neural basis.
2. Problem Solving, Creativity, and Insight
2.1. what is real world problem-solving.
Archimedes was embodied in the real world when he found his solution. In fact, the real world helped him solve the problem. Whether or not these sorts of historic accounts of creative inspiration are accurate 3 , they do correlate with some of our own key intuitions about how problem solving occurs “in the wild.” Real world problem solving (RWPS) is different from those that occur in a classroom or in a laboratory during an experiment. They are often dynamic and discontinuous, accompanied by many starts and stops. Solvers are never working on just one problem. Instead, they are simultaneously juggling several problems of varying difficulties and alternating their attention between them. Real world problems are typically ill-defined, and even when they are well-defined, often have open-ended solutions. Coupled with that is the added aspect of uncertainty associated with the solver's problem solving strategies. As introduced earlier, an important dimension of RWPS is the continuous interaction between the solver and their environment. During these interactions, the solver might be inspired or arrive at an “aha!” moment. However, more often than not, the solver experiences dozens of minor discovery events— “hmmm, interesting…” or “wait, what?…” moments. Like discovery events, there's typically never one singular impasse or distraction event. The solver must iterate through the problem solving process experiencing and managing these sorts of intervening events (including impasses and discoveries). In summary, RWPS is quite messy and involves a tight interplay between problem solving, creativity, and insight. Next, I explore each of these processes in more detail and explicate a possible role of memory, attention, conflict management and perception.
2.2. Analytical Problem-Solving
In psychology and neuroscience, problem-solving broadly refers to the inferential steps taken by an agent 4 that leads from a given state of affairs to a desired goal state ( Barbey and Barsalou, 2009 ). The agent does not immediately know how this goal can be reached and must perform some mental operations (i.e., thinking) to determine a solution ( Duncker, 1945 ).
The problem solving literature divides problems based on clarity (well-defined vs. ill-defined) or on the underlying cognitive processes (analytical, memory retrieval, and insight) ( Sprugnoli et al., 2017 ). While memory retrieval is an important process, I consider it as a sub-process to problem solving more generally. I first focus on analytical problem-solving process, which typically involves problem-representation and encoding, and the process of forming and executing a solution plan ( Robertson, 2016 ).
2.2.1. Problem Definition and Representation
An important initial phase of problem-solving involves defining the problem and forming a representation in the working memory. During this phase, components of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), default mode network (DMN), and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) have been found to be activated. If the problem is familiar and well-structured, top-down executive control mechanisms are engaged and the left prefrontal cortex including the frontopolar, dorso-lateral (dlPFC), and ventro-lateral (vlPFC) are activated ( Barbey and Barsalou, 2009 ). The DMN along with the various structures in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) including the hippocampus (HF), parahippocampal cortex, perirhinal and entorhinal cortices are also believed to have limited involvement, especially in episodic memory retrieval activities during this phase ( Beaty et al., 2016 ). The problem representation requires encoding problem information for which certain visual and parietal areas are also involved, although the extent of their involvement is less clear ( Anderson and Fincham, 2014 ; Anderson et al., 2014 ).
126.96.36.199. Working memory
An important aspect of problem representation is the engagement and use of working memory (WM). The WM allows for the maintenance of relevant problem information and description in the mind ( Gazzaley and Nobre, 2012 ). Research has shown that WM tasks consistently recruit the dlPFC and left inferior frontal cortex (IC) for encoding an manipulating information; dACC for error detection and performance adjustment; and vlPFC and the anterior insula (AI) for retrieving, selecting information and inhibitory control ( Chung and Weyandt, 2014 ; Fang et al., 2016 ).
While we generally have a sense for the brain regions that are functionally influential in problem definition, less is known about how exactly events are represented within these regions. One theory for how events are represented in the PFC is the structured event complex theory (SEC), in which components of the event knowledge are represented by increasingly higher-order convergence zones localized within the PFC, akin to the convergence zones (from posterior to anterior) that integrate sensory information in the brain ( Barbey et al., 2009 ). Under this theory, different zones in the PFC (left vs. right, anterior vs. posterior, lateral vs. medial, and dorsal vs. ventral) represent different aspects of the information contained in the events (e.g., number of events to be integrated together, the complexity of the event, whether planning, and action is needed). Other studies have also suggested the CEN's role in tasks requiring cognitive flexibility, and functions to switch thinking modes, levels of abstraction of thought and consider multiple concepts simultaneously ( Miyake et al., 2000 ).
Thus, when the problem is well-structured, problem representation is largely an executive control activity coordinated by the PFC in which problem information from memory populates WM in a potentially structured representation. Once the problem is defined and encoded, planning and execution of a solution can begin.
The central executive network (CEN), particularly the PFC, is largely involved in plan formation and in plan execution. Planning is the process of generating a strategy to advance from the current state to a goal state. This in turn involves retrieving a suitable solution strategy from memory and then coordinating its execution.
188.8.131.52. Plan formation
The dlPFC supports sequential planning and plan formation, which includes the generation of hypothesis and construction of plan steps ( Barbey and Barsalou, 2009 ). Interestingly, the vlPFC and the angular gyrus (AG), implicated in a variety of functions including memory retrieval, are also involved in plan formation ( Anderson et al., 2014 ). Indeed, the AG together with the regions in the MTL (including the HF) and several other regions form a what is known as the “core” network. The core network is believed to be activated when recalling past experiences, imagining fictitious, and future events and navigating large-scale spaces ( Summerfield et al., 2010 ), all key functions for generating plan hypotheses. A recent study suggests that the AG is critical to both episodic simulation, representation, and episodic memory ( Thakral et al., 2017 ). One possibility for how plans are formulated could involve a dynamic process of retrieving an optimal strategy from memory. Research has shown significant interaction between striatal and frontal regions ( Scimeca and Badre, 2012 ; Horner et al., 2015 ). The striatum is believed to play a key role in declarative memory retrieval, and specifically helping retrieve optimal (or previously rewarded) memories ( Scimeca and Badre, 2012 ). Relevant to planning and plan formation, Scimeca & Badre have suggested that the striatum plays two important roles: (1) in mapping acquired value/utility to action selection, and thereby helping plan formation, and (2) modulation and re-encoding of actions and other plan parameters. Different types of problems require different sets of specialized knowledge. For example, the knowledge needed to solve mathematical problems might be quite different (albeit overlapping) from the knowledge needed to select appropriate tools in the environment.
Thus far, I have discussed planning and problem representation as being domain-independent, which has allowed me to outline key areas of the PFC, MTL, and other regions relevant to all problem-solving. However, some types of problems require domain-specific knowledge for which other regions might need to be recruited. For example, when planning for tool-use, the superior parietal lobe (SPL), supramarginal gyrus (SMG), anterior inferior parietal lobe (AIPL), and certain portions of the temporal and occipital lobe involved in visual and spatial integration have been found to be recruited ( Brandi et al., 2014 ). It is believed that domain-specific information stored in these regions is recovered and used for planning.
184.108.40.206. Plan execution
Once a solution plan has been recruited from memory and suitably tuned for the problem on hand, the left-rostral PFC, caudate nucleus (CN), and bilateral posterior parietal cortices (PPC) are responsible for translating the plan into executable form ( Stocco et al., 2012 ). The PPC stores and maintains “mental template” of the executable form. Hemispherical division of labor is particularly relevant in planning where it was shown that when planning to solve a Tower of Hanoi (block moving) problem, the right PFC is involved in plan construction whereas the left PFC is involved in controlling processes necessary to supervise the execution of the plan ( Newman and Green, 2015 ). On a separate note and not the focus of this paper, plan execution and problem-solving can require the recruitment of affective and motivational processing in order to supply the agent with the resolve to solve problems, and the vmPFC has been found to be involved in coordinating this process ( Barbey and Barsalou, 2009 ).
During the gestalt movement in the 1930s, Maier noted that “most instances of “real” problem solving involves creative thinking” ( Maier, 1930 ). Maier performed several experiments to study mental fixation and insight problem solving. This close tie between insight and creativity continues to be a recurring theme, one that will be central to the current discussion. If creativity and insight are linked to RWPS as noted by Maier, then it is reasonable to turn to the creativity and insight literature for understanding the role played by the environment. A large portion of the creativity literature has focused on viewing creativity as an internal process, one in which the solvers attention is directed inwards, and toward internal stimuli, to facilitate the generation of novel ideas and associations in memory ( Beaty et al., 2016 ). Focusing on imagination, a number of researchers have looked at blinking, eye fixation, closing eyes, and looking nowhere behavior and suggested that there is a shift of attention from external to internal stimuli during creative problem solving ( Salvi and Bowden, 2016 ). The idea is that shutting down external stimuli reduces cognitive load and focuses attention internally. Other experiments studying sleep behavior have also noted the beneficial role of internal stimuli in problem solving. The notion of ideas popping into ones consciousness, suddenly, during a shower is highly intuitive for many and researchers have attempted to study this phenomena through the lens of incubation, and unconscious thought that is internally-driven. There have been several theories and counter-theories proposed to account specifically for the cognitive processes underlying incubation ( Ritter and Dijksterhuis, 2014 ; Gilhooly, 2016 ), but none of these theories specifically address the role of the external environment.
The neuroscience of creativity has also been extensively studied and I do not focus on an exhaustive literature review in this paper (a nice review can be found in Sawyer, 2011 ). From a problem-solving perspective, it has been found that unlike well-structured problems, ill-structured problems activate the right dlPFC. Most of the past work on creativity and creative problem-solving has focused on exploring memory structures and performing internally-directed searches. Creative idea generation has primarily been viewed as internally directed attention ( Jauk et al., 2012 ; Benedek et al., 2016 ) and a primary mechanism involved is divergent thinking , which is the ability to produce a variety of responses in a given situation ( Guilford, 1962 ). Divergent thinking is generally thought to involve interactions between the DMN, CEN, and the salience network ( Yoruk and Runco, 2014 ; Heinonen et al., 2016 ). One psychological model of creative cognition is the Geneplore model that considers two major phases of generation (memory retrieval and mental synthesis) and exploration (conceptual interpretation and functional inference) ( Finke et al., 1992 ; Boccia et al., 2015 ). It has been suggested that the associative mode of processing to generate new creative association is supported by the DMN, which includes the medial PFC, posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), tempororparietal juntion (TPJ), MTL, and IPC ( Beaty et al., 2014 , 2016 ).
That said, the creativity literature is not completely devoid of acknowledging the role of the environment. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Researchers have looked closely at the role played by externally provided hints from the time of the early gestalt psychologists and through to present day studies ( Öllinger et al., 2017 ). In addition to studying how hints can help problem solving, researchers have also looked at how directed action can influence subsequent problem solving—e.g., swinging arms prior to solving the two-string puzzle, which requires swinging the string ( Thomas and Lleras, 2009 ). There have also been numerous studies looking at how certain external perceptual cues are correlated with creativity measures. Vohs et al. suggested that untidiness in the environment and the increased number of potential distractions helps with creativity ( Vohs et al., 2013 ). Certain colors such as blue have been shown to help with creativity and attention to detail ( Mehta and Zhu, 2009 ). Even environmental illumination, or lack thereof, have been shown to promote creativity ( Steidle and Werth, 2013 ). However, it is important to note that while these and the substantial body of similar literature show the relationship of the environment to creative problem solving, they do not specifically account for the cognitive processes underlying the RWPS when external stimuli are received.
2.4. Insight Problem Solving
Analytical problem solving is believed to involve deliberate and conscious processing that advances step by step, allowing solvers to be able to explain exactly how they solved it. Inability to solve these problems is often associated with lack of required prior knowledge, which if provided, immediately makes the solution tractable. Insight, on the other hand, is believed to involve a sudden and unexpected emergence of an obvious solution or strategy sometimes accompanied by an affective aha! experience. Solvers find it difficult to consciously explain how they generated a solution in a sequential manner. That said, research has shown that having an aha! moment is neither necessary nor sufficient to insight and vice versa ( Danek et al., 2016 ). Generally, it is believed that insight solvers acquire a full and deep understanding of the problem when they have solved it ( Chu and Macgregor, 2011 ). There has been an active debate in the problem solving community about whether insight is something special. Some have argued that it is not, and that there are no special or spontaneous processes, but simply a good old-fashioned search of a large problem space ( Kaplan and Simon, 1990 ; MacGregor et al., 2001 ; Ash and Wiley, 2006 ; Fleck, 2008 ). Others have argued that insight is special and suggested that it is likely a different process ( Duncker, 1945 ; Metcalfe, 1986 ; Kounios and Beeman, 2014 ). This debate lead to two theories for insight problem solving. MacGregor et al. proposed the Criterion for Satisfactory Progress Theory (CSPT), which is based on Newell and Simons original notion of problem solving as being a heuristic search through the problem space ( MacGregor et al., 2001 ). The key aspect of CSPT is that the solver is continually monitoring their progress with some set of criteria. Impasses arise when there is a criterion failure, at which point the solver tries non-maximal but promising states. The representational change theory (RCT) proposed by Ohlsson et al., on the other hand, suggests that impasses occur when the goal state is not reachable from an initial problem representation (which may have been generated through unconscious spreading activation) ( Ohlsson, 1992 ). In order to overcome an impasse, the solver needs to restructure the problem representation, which they can do by (1) elaboration (noticing new features of a problem), (2) re-encoding fixing mistaken or incomplete representations of the problem, and by (3) changing constraints. Changing constraints is believed to involve two sub-processes of constraint relaxation and chunk-decomposition.
The current position is that these two theories do not compete with each other, but instead complement each other by addressing different stages of problem solving: pre- and post-impasse. Along these lines, Ollinger et al. proposed an extended RCT (eRCT) in which revising the search space and using heuristics was suggested as being a dynamic and iterative and recursive process that involves repeated instances of search, impasse and representational change ( Öllinger et al., 2014 , 2017 ). Under this theory, a solver first forms a problem representation and begins searching for solutions, presumably using analytical problem solving processes as described earlier. When a solution cannot be found, the solver encounters an impasse, at which point the solver must restructure or change the problem representation and once again search for a solution. The model combines both analytical problem solving (through heuristic searches, hill climbing and progress monitoring), and creative mechanisms of constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition to enable restructuring.
Ollingers model appears to comprehensively account for both analytical and insight problem solving and, therefore, could be a strong candidate to model RWPS. However, while compelling, it is nevertheless an insufficient model of RWPS for many reasons, of which two are particularly significant for the current paper. First, the model does explicitly address mechanisms by which external stimuli might be assimilated. Second, the model is not sufficiently flexible to account for other events (beyond impasse) occurring during problem solving, such as distraction, mind-wandering and the like.
So, where does this leave us? I have shown the interplay between problem solving, creativity and insight. In particular, using Ollinger's proposal, I have suggested (maybe not quite explicitly up until now) that RWPS involves some degree of analytical problem solving as well as the post-impasse more creative modes of problem restructuring. I have also suggested that this model might need to be extended for RWPS along two dimensions. First, events such as impasses might just be an instance of a larger class of events that intervene during problem solving. Thus, there needs to be an accounting of the cognitive mechanisms that are potentially influenced by impasses and these other intervening events. It is possible that these sorts of events are crucial and trigger a switch in attentional focus, which in turn facilitates switching between different problem solving modes. Second, we need to consider when and how externally-triggered stimuli from the solver's environment can influence the problem solving process. I detail three different mechanisms by which external knowledge might influence problem solving. I address each of these ideas in more detail in the next two sections.
3. Event-Triggered Mode Switching During Problem-Solving
When solving certain types of problems, the agent might encounter an impasse, i.e., some block in its ability to solve the problem ( Sprugnoli et al., 2017 ). The impasse may arise because the problem may have been ill-defined to begin with causing incomplete and unduly constrained representations to have been formed. Alternatively, impasses can occur when suitable solution strategies cannot be retrieved from memory or fail on execution. In certain instances, the solution strategies may not exist and may need to be generated from scratch. Regardless of the reason, an impasse is an interruption in the problem solving process; one that was running conflict-free up until the point when a seemingly unresolvable issue or an error in the predicted solution path was encountered. Seen as a conflict encountered in the problem-solving process it activates the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). It is believed that the ACC not only helps detect the conflict, but also switch modes from one of “exploitation” (planning) to “exploration” (search) ( Quilodran et al., 2008 ; Tang et al., 2012 ), and monitors progress during resolution ( Chu and Macgregor, 2011 ). Some mode switching duties are also found to be shared with the AI (the ACC's partner in the salience network), however, it is unclear exactly the extent of this function-sharing.
Even though it is debatable if impasses are a necessary component of insight, they are still important as they provide a starting point for the creativity ( Sprugnoli et al., 2017 ). Indeed, it is possible that around the moment of impasse, the AI and ACC together, as part of the salience network play a crucial role in switching thought modes from analytical planning mode to creative search and discovery mode. In the latter mode, various creative mechanisms might be activated allowing for a solution plan to emerge. Sowden et al. and many others have suggested that the salience network is potentially a candidate neurobiological mechanism for shifting between thinking processes, more generally ( Sowden et al., 2015 ). When discussing various dual-process models as they relate to creative cognition, Sowden et al. have even noted that the ACC activation could be useful marker to identify shifting as participants work creative problems.
3.2. Defocused Attention
As noted earlier, in the presence of an impasse there is a shift from an exploitative (analytical) thinking mode to an exploratory (creative) thinking mode. This shift impacts several networks including, for example, the attention network. It is believed attention can switch between a focused mode and a defocused mode. Focused attention facilitates analytic thought by constraining activation such that items are considered in a compact form that is amenable to complex mental operations. In the defocused mode, agents expand their attention allowing new associations to be considered. Sowden et al. (2015) note that the mechanism responsible for adjustments in cognitive control may be linked to the mechanisms responsible for attentional focus. The generally agreed position is that during generative thinking, unconscious cognitive processes activated through defocused attention are more prevalent, whereas during exploratory thinking, controlled cognition activated by focused attention becomes more prevalent ( Kaufman, 2011 ; Sowden et al., 2015 ).
Defocused attention allows agents to not only process different aspects of a situation, but to also activate additional neural structures in long term memory and find new associations ( Mendelsohn, 1976 ; Yoruk and Runco, 2014 ). It is believed that cognitive material attended to and cued by positive affective state results in defocused attention, allowing for more complex cognitive contexts and therefore a greater range of interpretation and integration of information ( Isen et al., 1987 ). High attentional levels are commonly considered a typical feature of highly creative subjects ( Sprugnoli et al., 2017 ).
4. Role of the Environment
In much of the past work the focus has been on treating creativity as largely an internal process engaging the DMN to assist in making novel connections in memory. The suggestion has been that “individual needs to suppress external stimuli and concentrate on the inner creative process during idea generation” ( Heinonen et al., 2016 ). These ideas can then function as seeds for testing and problem-solving. While true of many creative acts, this characterization does not capture how creative ideas arise in many real-world creative problems. In these types of problems, the agent is functioning and interacting with its environment before, during and after problem-solving. It is natural then to expect that stimuli from the environment might play a role in problem-solving. More specifically, it can be expected that through passive and active involvement with the environment, the agent is (1) able to trigger an unrelated, but potentially useful memory relevant for problem-solving, (2) make novel connections between two events in memory with the environmental cue serving as the missing link, and (3) incorporate a completely novel information from events occuring in the environment directly into the problem-solving process. I explore potential neural mechanisms for these three types of environmentally informed creative cognition, which I hypothesize are enabled by defocused attention.
4.1. Partial Cues Trigger Relevant Memories Through Context-Shifting
I have previously discussed the interaction between the MTL and PFC in helping select task-relevant and critical memories for problem-solving. It is well-known that pattern completion is an important function of the MTL and one that enables memory retrieval. Complementary Learning Theory (CLS) and its recently updated version suggest that the MTL and related structures support initial storage as well as retrieval of item and context-specific information ( Kumaran et al., 2016 ). According to CLS theory, the dentate gyrus (DG) and the CA3 regions of the HF are critical to selecting neural activity patterns that correspond to particular experiences ( Kumaran et al., 2016 ). These patterns might be distinct even if experiences are similar and are stabilized through increases in connection strengths between the DG and CA3. Crucially, because of the connection strengths, reactivation of part of the pattern can activate the rest of it (i.e., pattern completion). Kumaran et al. have further noted that if consistent with existing knowledge, these new experiences can be quickly replayed and interleaved into structured representations that form part of the semantic memory.
Cues in the environment provided by these experiences hold partial information about past stimuli or events and this partial information converges in the MTL. CLS accounts for how these cues might serve to reactivate partial patterns, thereby triggering pattern completion. When attention is defocused I hypothesize that (1) previously unnoticed partial cues are considered, and (2) previously noticed partial cues are decomposed to produce previously unnoticed sub-cues, which in turn are considered. Zabelina et al. (2016) have shown that real-world creativity and creative achievement is associated with “leaky attention,” i.e., attention that allows for irrelevant information to be noticed. In two experiments they systematically explored the relationship between two notions of creativity— divergent thinking and real-world creative achievement—and the use of attention. They found that attentional use is associated in different ways for each of the two notions of creativity. While divergent thinking was associated with flexible attention, it does not appear to be leaky. Instead, selective focus and inhibition components of attention were likely facilitating successful performance on divergent thinking tasks. On the other hand, real-world creative achievement was linked to leaky attention. RWPS involves elements of both divergent thinking and of real-world creative achievement, thus I would expect some amount of attentional leaks to be part of the problem solving process.
Thus, it might be the case that a new set of cues or sub-cues “leak” in and activate memories that may not have been previously considered. These cues serve to reactivate a diverse set of patterns that then enable accessing a wide range of memories. Some of these memories are extra-contextual, in that they consider the newly noticed cues in several contexts. For example, when unable to find a screwdriver, we might consider using a coin. It is possible that defocused attention allows us to consider the coin's edge as being a potentially relevant cue that triggers uses for the thin edge outside of its current context in a coin. The new cues (or contexts) may allow new associations to emerge with cues stored in memory, which can occur during incubation. Objects and contexts are integrated into memory automatically into a blended representation and changing contexts disrupts this recognition ( Hayes et al., 2007 ; Gabora, 2016 ). Cue-triggered context shifting allows an agent to break-apart a memory representation, which can then facilitate problem-solving in new ways.
4.2. Heuristic Prototyping Facilitates Novel Associations
It has long been the case that many scientific innovations have been inspired by events in nature and the surrounding environment. As noted earlier, Archimedes realized the relationship between the volume of an irregularly shaped object and the volume of water it displaced. This is an example of heuristic prototyping where the problem-solver notices an event in the environment, which then triggers the automatic activation of a heuristic prototype and the formation of novel associations (between the function of the prototype and the problem) which they can then use to solve the problem ( Luo et al., 2013 ). Although still in its relative infancy, there has been some recent research into the neural basis for heuristic prototyping. Heuristic prototype has generally been defined as an enlightening prototype event with a similar element to the current problem and is often composed of a feature and a function ( Hao et al., 2013 ). For example, in designing a faster and more efficient submarine hull, a heuristic prototype might be a shark's skin, while an unrelated prototype might be a fisheye camera ( Dandan et al., 2013 ).
Research has shown that activating the feature function of the right heuristic prototype and linking it by way of semantic similarity to the required function of the problem was the key mechanism people used to solve several scienitific insight problems ( Yang et al., 2016 ). A key region activated during heuristic prototyping is the dlPFC and it is believed to be generally responsible for encoding the events into memory and may play an important role in selecting and retrieving the matched unsolved technical problem from memory ( Dandan et al., 2013 ). It is also believed that the precuneus plays a role in automatic retrieval of heuristic information allowing the heuristic prototype and the problem to combine ( Luo et al., 2013 ). In addition to semantic processing, certain aspects of visual imagery have also been implicated in heuristic prototyping leading to the suggestion of the involvement of Broadman's area BA 19 in the occipital cortex.
There is some degree of overlap between the notions of heuristic prototyping and analogical transfer (the mapping of relations from one domain to another). Analogical transfer is believed to activate regions in the left medial fronto-parietal system (dlPFC and the PPC) ( Barbey and Barsalou, 2009 ). I suggest here that analogical reasoning is largely an internally-guided process that is aided by heuristic prototyping which is an externally-guided process. One possible way this could work is if heuristic prototyping mechanisms help locate the relevant memory with which to then subsequently analogize.
4.3. Making Physical Inferences to Acquire Novel Information
The agent might also be able to learn novel facts about their environment through passive observation as well as active experimentation. There has been some research into the neural basis for causal reasoning ( Barbey and Barsalou, 2009 ; Operskalski and Barbey, 2016 ), but beyond its generally distributed nature, we do not know too much more. Beyond abstract causal reasoning, some studies looked into the cortical regions that are activated when people watch and predict physical events unfolding in real-time and in the real-world ( Fischer et al., 2016 ). It was found that certain regions were associated with representing types of physical concepts, with the left intraparietal sulcus (IPS) and left middle frontal gyrus (MFG) shown to play a role in attributing causality when viewing colliding objects ( Mason and Just, 2013 ). The parahippocampus (PHC) was associated with linking causal theory to observed data and the TPJ was involved in visualizing movement of objects and actions in space ( Mason and Just, 2013 ).
5. Proposed Theory
I noted earlier that Ollinger's model for insight problem solving, while serving as a good candidate for RWPS, requires extension. In this section, I propose a candidate model that includes some necessary extensions to Ollinger's framework. I begin by laying out some preliminary notions that underlie the proposed model.
5.1. Dual Attentional Modes
I propose that the attention-switching mechanism described earlier is at the heart of RWPS and enables two modes of operation: focused and defocused mode. In the focused mode, the problem representation is more or less fixed, and problem solving proceeds in a focused and goal directed manner through search, planning, and execution mechanisms. In the defocused mode, problem solving is not necessarily goal directed, but attempts to generate ideas, driven by both internal and external items.
At first glance, these modes might seem similar to convergent and divergent thinking modes postulated by numerous others to account for creative problem solving. Divergent thinking allows for the generation of new ideas and convergent thinking allows for verification and selection of generated ideas. So, it might seem that focused mode and convergent thinking are similar and likewise divergent and defocused mode. They are, however, quite different. The modes relate less to idea generation and verification, and more to the specific mechanisms that are operating with regard to a particular problem at a particular moment in time. Convergent and divergent processes may be occurring during both defocused and focused modes. Some degree of divergent processes may be used to search and identify specific solution strategies in focused mode. Also, there might be some degree of convergent idea verification occuring in defocused mode as candidate items are evaluated for their fit with the problem and goal. Thus, convergent and divergent thinking are one amongst many mechanisms that are utilized in focused and defocused mode. Each of these two modes has to do with degree of attention placed on a particular problem.
There have been numerous dual-process and dual-systems models of cognition proposed over the years. To address criticisms raised against these models and to unify some of the terminology, Evans & Stanovich proposed a dual-process model comprising Type 1 and Type 2 thought ( Evans and Stanovich, 2013 ; Sowden et al., 2015 ). Type 1 processes are those that are believed to be autonomous and do not require working memory. Type 2 processes, on the other hand, are believed to require working memory and are cognitively decoupled to prevent real-world representations from becoming confused with mental simulations ( Sowden et al., 2015 ). While acknowledging various other attributes that are often used to describe dual process models (e.g., fast/slow, associative/rule-based, automatic/controlled), Evans & Stanovich note that these attributes are merely frequent correlates and not defining characteristics of Type 1 or Type 2 processes. The proposed dual attentional modes share some similarities with the Evans & Stanovich Type 1 and 2 models. Specifically, Type 2 processes might occur in focused attentional mode in the proposed model as they typically involve the working memory and certain amount of analytical thought and planning. Similarly, Type 1 processes are likely engaged in defocused attentional mode as there are notions of associative and generative thinking that might be facilitated when attention has been defocused. The crucial difference between the proposed model and other dual-process models is that the dividing line between focused and defocused attentional modes is the degree of openness to internal and external stimuli (by various networks and functional units in the brain) when problem solving. Many dual process models were designed to classify the “type” of thinking process or a form of cognitive processing. In some sense, the “processes” in dual process theories are characterized by the type of mechanism of operation or the type of output they produced. Here, I instead characterize and differentiate the modes of thinking by the receptivity of different functional units in the brain to input during problem solving.
This, however, raises a different question of the relationship between these attentional modes and conscious vs. unconscious thinking. It is clear that both the conscious and unconscious are involved in problem solving, as well as in RWPS. Here, I claim that a problem being handled is, at any given point in time, in either a focused mode or in a defocused mode. When in the focused mode, problem solving primarily proceeds in a manner that is available for conscious deliberation. More specifically, problem space elements and representations are tightly managed and plans and strategies are available in the working memory and consciously accessible. There are, however, secondary unconscious operations in the focused modes that includes targeted memory retrieval and heuristic-based searches. In the defocused mode, the problem is primarily managed in an unconscious way. The problem space elements are broken apart and loosely managed by various mechanisms that do not allow for conscious deliberation. That said, it is possible that some problem parameters remain accessible. For example, it is possible that certain goal information is still maintained consciously. It is also possible that indexes to all the problems being considered by the solver are maintained and available to conscious awareness.
5.2. RWPS Model
Returning to Ollinger's model for insight problem solving, it now becomes readily apparent how this model can be modified to incorporate environmental effects as well as generalizing the notion of intervening events beyond that of impasses. I propose a theory for RWPS that begins with standard analytical problem-solving process (See Figures 1 , 2 ).
Figure 1 . Summary of neural activations during focused problem-solving (Left) and defocused problem-solving (Right) . During defocused problem-solving, the salience network (insula and ACC) coordinates the switching of several networks into a defocused attention mode that permits the reception of a more varied set of stimuli and interpretations via both the internally-guided networks (default mode network DMN) and externally guided networks (Attention). PFC, prefrontal cortex; ACC, anterior cingulate cortex; PCC, posterior cingulate cortex; IPC, inferior parietal cortex; PPC, posterior parietal cortex; IPS, intra-parietal sulcus; TPJ, temporoparietal junction; MTL, medial temporal lobe; FEF, frontal eye field.
Figure 2 . Proposed Model for Real World Problem Solving (RWPS). The corresponding neural correlates are shown in italics. During problem-solving, an initial problem representation is formed based on prior knowledge and available perceptual information. The problem-solving then proceeds in a focused, goal-directed mode until the goal is achieved or a defocusing event (e.g., impasse or distraction) occurs. During focused mode operation, the solver interacts with the environment in directed manner, executing focused plans, and allowing for predicted items to be activated by the environment. When a defocusing event occurs, the problem-solving then switches into a defocused mode until a focusing event (e.g., discovery) occurs. In defocused mode, the solver performs actions unrelated to the problem (or is inactive) and is receptive to a set of environmental triggers that activate novel aspects using the three mechanisms discussed in this paper. When a focusing event occurs, the diffused problem elements cohere into a restructured representation and problem-solving returns into a focused mode.
5.2.1. Focused Problem Solving Mode
Initially, both prior knowledge and perceptual entities help guide the creation of problem representations in working memory. Prior optimal or rewarding solution strategies are obtained from LTM and encoded in the working memory as well. This process is largely analytical and the solver interacts with their environment through focused plan or idea execution, targeted observation of prescribed entities, and estimating prediction error of these known entities. More specifically, when a problem is presented, the problem representations are activated and populated into working memory in the PFC, possibly in structured representations along convergence zones. The PFC along with the Striatum and the MTL together attempt at retrieving an optimal or previously rewarded solution strategy from long term memory. If successfully retrieved, the solution strategy is encoded into the PPC as a mental template, which then guides relevant motor control regions to execute the plan.
5.2.2. Defocusing Event-Triggered Mode Switching
The search and solve strategy then proceeds analytically until a “defocusing event” is encountered. The salience network (AI and ACC) monitor for conflicts and attempt to detect any such events in the problem-solving process. As long as no conflicts are detected, the salience network focuses on recruiting networks to achieve goals and suppresses the DMN ( Beaty et al., 2016 ). If the plan execution or retrieval of the solution strategy fails, then a defocusing event is detected and the salience network performs mode switching. The salience network dynamically switches from the focused problem-solving mode to a defocused problem-solving mode ( Menon, 2015 ). Ollinger's current model does not account for other defocusing events beyond an impasse, but it is not inconceivable that there could be other such events triggered by external stimuli (e.g., distraction or an affective event) or by internal stimuli (e.g., mind wandering).
5.2.3. Defocused Problem Solving Mode
In defocused mode, the problem is operated on by mechanisms that allow for the generation and testing of novel ideas. Several large-scale brain networks are recruited to explore and generate new ideas. The search for novel ideas is facilitated by generally defocused attention, which in turn allows for creative idea generation from both internal as well as external sources. The salience network switches operations from defocused event detection to focused event or discovery detection, whereby for example, environmental events or ideas that are deemed interesting can be detected. During this idea exploration phase, internally, the DMN is no longer suppressed and attempts to generate new ideas for problem-solving. It is known that the IPC is involved in the generation of new ideas ( Benedek et al., 2014 ) and together with the PPC in coupling different information together ( Simone Sandkühler, 2008 ; Stocco et al., 2012 ). Beaty et al. (2016) have proposed that even this internal idea-generation process can be goal directed, thereby allowing for a closer working relationship between the CEN and the DMN. They point to neuroimaging evidence that support the possibility that the executive control network (comprising the lateral prefrontal and inferior parietal regions) can constrain and direct the DMN in its process of generating ideas to meet task-specific goals via top down monitoring and executive control ( Beaty et al., 2016 ). The control network is believed to maintain an “internal train of thought” by keeping the task goal activated, thereby allowing for strategic and goal-congruent searches for ideas. Moreover, they suggest that the extent of CEN involvement in the DMN idea-generation may depend on the extent to which the creative task is constrained. In the RWPS setting, I would suspect that the internal search for creative solutions is not entirely unconstrained, even in the defocused mode. Instead, the solver is working on a specified problem and thus, must maintain the problem-thread while searching for solutions. Moreover, self-generated ideas must be evaluated against the problem parameters and thereby might need some top-down processing. This would suggest that in such circumstances, we would expect to see an increased involvement of the CEN in constraining the DMN.
On the external front, several mechanisms are operating in this defocused mode. Of particular note are the dorsal attention network, composed of the visual cortex (V), IPS and the frontal eye field (FEF) along with the precuneus and the caudate nucleus allow for partial cues to be considered. The MTL receives synthesized cue and contextual information and populates the WM in the PFC with a potentially expanded set of information that might be relevant for problem-solving. The precuneus, dlPFC and PPC together trigger the activation and use of a heuristic prototype based on an event in the environment. The caudate nucleus facilitates information routing between the PFC and PPC and is involved in learning and skill acquisition.
5.2.4. Focusing Event-Triggered Mode Switching
The problem's life in this defocused mode continues until a focusing event occurs, which could be triggered by either external (e.g., notification of impending deadline, discovery of a novel property in the environment) or internal items (e.g., goal completion, discovery of novel association or updated relevancy of a previously irrelevant item). As noted earlier, an internal train of thought may be maintained that facilitates top-down evaluation of ideas and tracking of these triggers ( Beaty et al., 2016 ). The salience network switches various networks back to the focused problem-solving mode, but not without the potential for problem restructuring. As noted earlier, problem space elements are maintained somewhat loosely in the defocused mode. Thus, upon a focusing event, a set or subset of these elements cohere into a tight (restructured) representation suitable for focused mode problem solving. The process then repeats itself until the goal has been achieved.
5.3. Model Predictions
5.3.1. single-mode operation.
The proposed RWPS model provides several interesting hypotheses, which I discuss next. First, the model assumes that any given problem being worked on is in one mode or another, but not both. Thus, the model predicts that there cannot be focused plan execution on a problem that is in defocused mode. The corollary prediction is that novel perceptual cues (as those discussed in section 4) cannot help the solver when in focused mode. The corollary prediction, presumably has some support from the inattentional blindness literature. Inattentional blindness is when perceptual cues are not noticed during a task (e.g., counting the number of basketball passes between several people, but not noticing a gorilla in the scene) ( Simons and Chabris, 1999 ). It is possible that during focused problem solving, that external and internally generated novel ideas are simply not considered for problem solving. I am not claiming that these perceptual cues are always ignored, but that they are not considered within the problem. Sometimes external cues (like distracting occurrences) can serve as defocusing events, but the model predicts that the actual content of these cues are not themselves useful for solving the specific problem at hand.
When comparing dual-process models Sowden et al. (2015) discuss shifting from one type of thinking to another and explore how this shift relates to creativity. In this regard, they weigh the pros and cons of serial vs. parallel shifts. In dual-process models that suggest serial shifts, it is necessary to disengage one type of thought prior to engaging the other or to shift along a continuum. Whereas, in models that suggest parallel shifts, each of the thinking types can operate in parallel. Per this construction, the proposed RWPS model is serial, however, not quite in the same sense. As noted earlier, the RWPS model is not a dual-process model in the same sense as other dual process model. Instead, here, the thrust is on when the brain is receptive or not receptive to certain kinds of internal and external stimuli that can influence problem solving. Thus, while the modes may be serial with respect to a certain problem, it does not preclude the possibility of serial and parallel thinking processes that might be involved within these modes.
5.3.2. Event-Driven Transitions
The model requires an event (defocusing or focusing) to transition from one mode to another. After all why else would a problem that is successfully being resolved in the focused mode (toward completion) need to necessarily be transferred to defocused mode? These events are interpreted as conflicts in the brain and therefore the mode-switching is enabled by the saliency network and the ACC. Thus, the model predicts that there can be no transition from one mode to another without an event. This is a bit circular, as an event is really what triggers the transition in the first place. But, here I am suggesting that an external or internal cue triggered event is what drives the transition, and that transitions cannot happen organically without such an event. In some sense, the argument is that the transition is discontinuous, rather than a smooth one. Mind-wandering is good example of when we might drift into defocused mode, which I suggest is an example of an internally driven event caused by an alternative thought that takes attention away from the problem.
A model assumption underlying RWPS is that events such as impasses have a similar effect to other events such as distraction or mind wandering. Thus, it is crucial to be able to establish that there exists of class of such events and they have a shared effect on RWPS, which is to switch attentional modes.
5.3.3. Focused Mode Completion
The model also predicts that problems cannot be solved (i.e., completed) within the defocused mode. A problem can be considered solved when a goal is reached. However, if a goal is reached and a problem is completed in the defocused mode, then there must have not been any converging event or coherence of problem elements. While it is possible that the solver arbitrarily arrived at the goal in a diffused problem space and without conscious awareness of completing the task or even any converging event or problem recompiling, it appears somewhat unlikely. It is true that there are many tasks that we complete without actively thinking about it. We do not think about what foot to place in front of another while walking, but this is not an instance of problem solving. Instead, this is an instance of unconscious task completion.
5.3.4. Restructuring Required
The model predicts that a problem cannot return to a focused mode without some amount of restructuring. That is, once defocused, the problem is essentially never the same again. The problem elements begin interacting with other internally and externally-generated items, which in turn become absorbed into the problem representation. This prediction can potentially be tested by establishing some preliminary knowledge, and then showing one group of subjects the same knowledge as before, while showing the another group of subjects different stimuli. If the model's predictions hold, the problem representation will be restructured in some way for both groups.
There are numerous other such predictions, which are beyond the scope of this paper. One of the biggest challenges then becomes evaluating the model to set up suitable experiments aimed at testing the predictions and falsifying the theory, which I address next.
6. Experimental Challenges and Paradigms
One of challenges in evaluating the RWPS is that real world factors cannot realistically be accounted for and sufficiently controlled within a laboratory environment. So, how can one controllably test the various predictions and model assumptions of “real world” problem solving, especially given that by definition RWPS involves the external environment and unconscious processing? At the expense of ecological validity, much of insight problem solving research has employed an experimental paradigm that involves providing participants single instances of suitably difficult problems as stimuli and observing various physiological, neurological and behavioral measures. In addition, through verbal protocols, experimenters have been able to capture subjective accounts and problem solving processes that are available to the participants' conscious. These experiments have been made more sophisticated through the use of timed-hints and/or distractions. One challenge with this paradigm has been the selection of a suitable set of appropriately difficult problems. The classic insight problems (e.g., Nine-dot, eight-coin) can be quite difficult, requiring complicated problem solving processes, and also might not generalize to other problems or real world problems. Some in the insight research community have moved in the direction of verbal tasks (e.g., riddles, anagrams, matchstick rebus, remote associates tasks, and compound remote associates tasks). Unfortunately, these puzzles, while providing a great degree of controllability and repeatability, are even less realistic. These problems are not entirely congruent with the kinds of problems that humans are solving every day.
The other challenge with insight experiments is the selection of appropriate performance and process tracking measures. Most commonly, insight researchers use measures such as time to solution, probability of finding solution, and the like for performance measures. For process tracking, verbal protocols, coded solution attempts, and eye tracking are increasingly common. In neuroscientific studies of insight various neurological measures using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEGs), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (tMS) are popular and allow for spatially and temporally localizing an insight event.
Thus, the challenge for RWPS is two-fold: (1) selection of stimuli (real world problems) that are generalizable, and (2) selection of measures (or a set of measures) that can capture key aspects of the problem solving process. Unfortunately, these two challenges are somewhat at odds with each other. While fMRI and various neuroscientific measures can capture the problem solving process in real time, it is practically difficult to provide participants a realistic scenario while they are laying flat on their back in an fMRI machine and allowed to move nothing more than a finger. To begin addressing this conundrum, I suggest returning to object manipulation problems (not all that different from those originally introduced by Maier and Duncker nearly a century ago), but using modern computing and user-interface technologies.
One pseudo-realistic approach is to generate challenging object manipulation problems in Virtual Reality (VR). VR has been used to describe 3-D environment displays that allows participants to interact with artificially projected, but experientially realistic scenarios. It has been suggested that virtual environments (VE) invoke the same cognitive modules as real equivalent environmental experience ( Foreman, 2010 ). Crucially, since VE's can be scaled and designed as desired, they provide a unique opportunity to study pseudo-RWPS. However, a VR-based research approach has its limitations, one of which is that it is nearly impossible to track participant progress through a virtual problem using popular neuroscientific measures such as fMRI because of the limited mobility of connected participants.
Most of the studies cited in this paper utilized an fMRI-based approach in conjunction with a verbal or visual task involving problem-solving or creative thinking. Very few, if any, studies involved the use physical manipulation, and those physical manipulations were restricted to limited finger movements. Thus, another pseudo-realistic approach is allowing subjects to teleoperate robotic arms and legs from inside the fMRI machine. This paradigm has seen limited usage in psychology and robotics, in studies focused on Human-Robot interaction ( Loth et al., 2015 ). It could be an invaluable tool in studying real-time dynamic problem-solving through the control of a robotic arm. In this paradigm a problem solving task involving physical manipulation is presented to the subject via the cameras of a robot. The subject (in an fMRI) can push buttons to operate the robot and interact with its environment. While the subjects are not themselves moving, they can still manipulate objects in the real world. What makes this paradigm all the more interesting is that the subject's manipulation-capabilities can be systematically controlled. Thus, for a particular problem, different robotic perceptual and manipulation capabilities can be exposed, allowing researchers to study solver-problem dynamics in a new way. For example, even simple manipulation problems (e.g., re-arranging and stacking blocks on a table) can be turned into challenging problems when the robotic movements are restricted. Here, the problem space restrictions are imposed not necessarily on the underlying problem, but on the solver's own capabilities. Problems of this nature, given their simple structure, may enable studying everyday practical creativity without the burden of devising complex creative puzzles. Crucial to note, both these pseudo-realistic paradigms proposed demonstrate a tight interplay between the solver's own capabilities and their environment.
While the neural basis for problem-solving, creativity and insight have been studied extensively in the past, there is still a lack of understanding of the role of the environment in informing the problem-solving process. Current research has primarily focused on internally-guided mental processes for idea generation and evaluation. However, the type of real world problem-solving (RWPS) that is often considered a hallmark of human intelligence has involved both a dynamic interaction with the environment and the ability to handle intervening and interrupting events. In this paper, I have attempted to synthesize the literature into a unified theory of RWPS, with a specific focus on ways in which the environment can help problem-solve and the key neural networks involved in processing and utilizing relevant and useful environmental information. Understanding the neural basis for RWPS will allow us to be better situated to solve difficult problems. Moreover, for researchers in computer science and artificial intelligence, clues into the neural underpinnings of the computations taking place during creative RWPS, can inform the design the next generation of helper and exploration robots which need these capabilities in order to be resourceful and resilient in the open-world.
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.
The research for this Hypothesis/Theory Article was funded by the authors private means. Publication costs will be covered by my institution: Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
I am indebted to Professor Matthias Scheutz, Professor Elizabeth Race, Professor Ayanna Thomas, and Professor. Shaun Patel for providing guidance with the research and the manuscript. I am also grateful for the facilities provided by Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA.
1. ^ My intention is not to ignore the benefits of a concentrated internal thought process which likely occurred as well, but merely to acknowledge the possibility that the environment might have also helped.
2. ^ The research in insight does extensively use “hints” which are, arguably, a form of external influence. But these hints are highly targeted and might not be available in this explicit form when solving problems in the real world.
3. ^ The accuracy of these accounts has been placed in doubt. They often are recounted years later, with inaccuracies, and embellished for dramatic effect.
4. ^ I use the term “agent” to refer to the problem-solver. The term agent is more general than “creature” or “person” or “you" and is intentionally selected to broadly reference humans, animals as well as artificial agents. I also selectively use the term “solver.”
Abraham, A. (2013). The promises and perils of the neuroscience of creativity. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7:246. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00246
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., and Fincham, J. M. (2014). Discovering the sequential structure of thought. Cogn. Sci. 38, 322–352. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12068
Anderson, J. R., Seung, H., and Fincham, J. M. (2014). Neuroimage discovering the structure of mathematical problem solving. Neuroimage 97, 163–177. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.031
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Ash, I. K., and Wiley, J. (2006). The nature of restructuring in insight: an individual-differences approach. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 66–73. doi: 10.3758/BF03193814
Barbey, A. K., and Barsalou, L. W. (2009). “Reasoning and problem solving : models,” in Encyclopedia of Neuroscience , ed L. Squire (Oxford: Academic Press), 35–43.
Barbey, A. K., Krueger, F., and Grafman, J. (2009). Structured event complexes in the medial prefrontal cortex support counterfactual representations for future planning. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1291–1300. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0315
Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P. J., and Schacter, D. L. (2016). Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004
Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Wilkins, R. W., Jauk, E., Fink, A., Silvia, P. J., et al. (2014). Creativity and the default network: a functional connectivity analysis of the creative brain at rest. Neuropsychologia 64, 92–98. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.019
Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Beaty, R. E., Fink, A., Koschutnig, K., and Neubauer, A. C. (2016). Brain mechanisms associated with internally directed attention and self-generated thought. Sci. Rep. 6:22959. doi: 10.1038/srep22959
Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Fink, A., Koschutnig, K., Reishofer, G., Ebner, F., et al. (2014). To create or to recall? Neural mechanisms underlying the generation of creative new ideas. Neuroimage 88, 125–133. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.021
Boccia, M., Piccardi, L., Palermo, L., Nori, R., and Palmiero, M. (2015). Where do bright ideas occur in ourbrain? Meta-analytic evidence from neuroimaging studies of domain-specific creativity. Front. Psychol. 6:1195. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01195
Brandi, M. l., Wohlschläger, A., Sorg, C., and Hermsdörfer, J. (2014). The neural correlates of planning and executing actual tool use. J. Neurosci. 34, 13183–13194. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0597-14.2014
Cass, S. (2005). “Apollo 13, we have a solution,” in IEEE Spectrum On-line, 04 , 1. Available online at: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/space-age/apollo-13-we-have-a-solution
Chu, Y., and Macgregor, J. N. (2011). Human performance on insight problem solving : a review J. Probl. Solv. 3, 119–150. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1094
Chung, H. J., and Weyandt, L. L. (2014). “The physiology of executive functioning,” Handbook of Executive Functioning (Springer), 13–28.
Dandan, T., Haixue, Z., Wenfu, L., Wenjing, Y., Jiang, Q., and Qinglin, Z. (2013). Brain activity in using heuristic prototype to solve insightful problems. Behav. Brain Res. 253, 139–144. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.07.017
Danek, A. H., Wiley, J., and Öllinger, M. (2016). Solving classical insight problems without aha! experience: 9 dot, 8 coin, and matchstick arithmetic problems. J. Probl. Solv. 9:4. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1183
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychol. Monogr. 58, i–113.
Evans, J. S., and Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 223–241. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460685
Fang, X., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y., Cheng, L., Li, J., Wang, Y., et al. (2016). Resting-state coupling between core regions within the central-executive and salience networks contributes to working memory performance. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 10:27. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00027
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., and Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications . Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Fischer, J., Mikhael, J. G., Tenenbaum, J. B., and Kanwisher, N. (2016). Functional neuroanatomy of intuitive physical inference. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, E5072–E5081. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1610344113
Fleck, J. I. (2008). Working memory demands in insight versus analytic problem solving. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 20, 139–176. doi: 10.1080/09541440601016954
Foreman, N. (2010). Virtual reality in psychology. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 2, 225–252. Available online at: http://earthlab.uoi.gr/theste/index.php/theste/article/view/33
Gabora, L. (2016). The neural basis and evolution of divergent and convergent thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.03609 .
Gazzaley, A., and Nobre, A. C. (2012). Top-down modulation: bridging selective attention and working memory. Trends Cogn. Sci. 60, 830–846. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.11.014
Gilhooly, K. J. (2016). Incubation and intuition in creative problem solving. Front. Psychol. 7:1076. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01076
Guilford, J. P. (1962). “Creativity: its measurement and development,” in A Source Book for Creative Thinking (New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons), 151–167.
Hao, X., Cui, S., Li, W., Yang, W., Qiu, J., and Zhang, Q. (2013). Enhancing insight in scientific problem solving by highlighting the functional features of prototypes: an fMRI study. Brain Res. 1534, 46–54. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2013.08.041
Hayes, S. M., Nadel, L., and Ryan, L. (2007). The effect of scene context on episodic object recognition: parahippocampal cortex mediates memory encoding and retrieval success. Hippocampus 9, 19–22. doi: 10.1002/hipo.20319
Heinonen, J., Numminen, J., Hlushchuk, Y., Antell, H., Taatila, V., and Suomala, J. (2016). Default mode and executive networks areas: association with the serial order in divergent thinking. PLoS ONE 11:e0162234. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162234
Horner, A. J., Bisby, J. A., Bush, D., Lin, W.-J., and Burgess, N. (2015). Evidence for holistic episodic recollection via hippocampal pattern completion. Nat. Commun. 6:7462. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8462
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., and Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52, 1122–1131. doi: 10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.112
Jauk, E., Benedek, M., and Neubauer, A. C. (2012). Tackling creativity at its roots: evidence for different patterns of EEG alpha activity related to convergent and divergent modes of task processing. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 84, 219–225. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.02.012
Kaplan, C. A., and Simon, H. A. (1990). In search of insight. Cogn. Psychol. 22, 374–419.
Kaufman, S. B. (2011). “Intelligence and the cognitive unconscious,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 442–467.
Kounios, J., and Beeman, M. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 71–93. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115154
Kumaran, D., Hassabis, D., and McClelland, J. L. (2016). What learning systems do intelligent agents need? complementary learning systems theory updated. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 512–534. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.004
Loth, S., Jettka, K., Giuliani, M., and De Ruiter, J. P. (2015). Ghost-in-the-machine reveals human social signals for human–robot interaction. Front. Psychol. 6:1641. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01641
Lovell, J., and Kluger, J. (2006). Apollo 13 . New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Luo, J., Li, W., Qiu, J., Wei, D., Liu, Y., and Zhang, Q. (2013). Neural basis of scientific innovation induced by heuristic prototype. PLoS ONE 8:e49231. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049231
MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., and Chronicle, E. P. (2001). Information processing and insight: a process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 27:176. doi: 10.1037/0278-7318.104.22.168
Maier, N. R. (1930). Reasoning in humans. i. on direction. J. Comp. Psychol. 10:115.
Mason, R. A., and Just, M. A. (2013). Neural representations of physics concepts. Psychol. Sci. 27, 904–913. doi: 10.1177/0956797616641941
Mehta, R., and Zhu, R. J. (2009). Blue or red? exploring the effect of color on cognitive task performances. Science 323, 1226–1229. doi: 10.1126/science.1169144
Mendelsohn, G. (1976). Associative and attentional processes in creative performance. J. Pers. 44, 341–369.
Menon, V. (2015). “Salience network,” in Brain Mapping: An Encyclopedic Reference, Vol. 2 , ed A. W. Toga (London: Academic Press; Elsevier), 597–611.
Metcalfe, J. (1986). Premonitions of insight predict impending error. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 12, 623.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., and Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 41, 49–100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Newman, S. D., and Green, S. R. (2015). Complex problem solving. Brain Mapp. 3, 543–549. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-397025-1.00282-7
CrossRef Full Text
Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. Adv. Psychol. Think. 1, 1–44.
Öllinger, M., Fedor, A., Brodt, S., and Szathmáry, E. (2017). Insight into the ten-penny problem: guiding search by constraints and maximization. Psychol. Res. 81, 925–938. doi: 10.1007/s00426-016-0800-3
Öllinger, M., Jones, G., and Knoblich, G. (2014). The dynamics of search, impasse, and representational change provide a coherent explanation of difficulty in the nine-dot problem. Psychol. Res. 78, 266–275. doi: 10.1007/s00426-013-0494-8
Operskalski, J. T., and Barbey, A. K. (2016). “Cognitive neuroscience of causal reasoning,” in Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning , ed M. R. Waldmann (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 217–242.
Quilodran, R., Rothé, M., and Procyk, E. (2008). Behavioral shifts and action valuation in the anterior cingulate cortex. Neuron 57, 314–325. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.11.031
Ritter, S. M., and Dijksterhuis, A. (2014). Creativity the unconscious foundations of the incubation period. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:215. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00215
Robertson, S. (2016). Problem Solving: Perspectives from Cognition and Neuroscience . New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Salvi, C., and Bowden, E. M. (2016). Looking for creativity: where do we look when we look for new ideas? Front. Psychol. 7:161. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00161
Sawyer, K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: a critical review. Creat. Res. J. 23, 137–154. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2011.571191
Scimeca, J. M., and Badre, D. (2012). Striatal contributions to declarative memory retrieval Jason. Neuron 75, 380–392. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.07.014
Simone Sandkühler, J. B. (2008). Deconstructing insight: EEG correlates of insightful problem solving. PLoS ONE 3:e1459. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001459
Simons, D. J., and Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28, 1059–1074.
PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar
Sowden, P. T., Pringle, A., and Gabora, L. (2015). The shifting sands of creative thinking: connections to dual-process theory. Think. Reason. 21, 40–60. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2014.885464
Sprugnoli, G., Rossi, S., Emmendorfer, A., Rossi, A., Liew, S.-L., Tatti, E., et al. (2017). Neural correlates of Eureka moment. Intelligence 62, 99–118. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2017.03.004
Steidle, A., and Werth, L. (2013). Freedom from constraints: darkness and dim illumination promote creativity. J. Environ. Psychol. 35, 67–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.003
Stocco, A., Lebiere, C., O'Reilly, R. C., and Anderson, J. R. (2012). Distinct contributions of the caudate nucleus, rostral prefrontal cortex, and parietal cortex to the execution of instructed tasks. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 12, 611–628. doi: 10.3758/s13415-012-0117-7
Summerfield, J. J., Hassabis, D., and Maguire, E. A. (2010). Differential engagement of brain regions within a corenetwork during scene construction. Neuropsychologia 48, 1501–1509. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.01.022
Tang, Y.-Y., Rothbart, M. K., and Posner, M. I. (2012). Neural Correlates of stablishing, maintaining and switching brain states. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 330–337. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.05.001
Team, M. E. (1970). Mission Operations Report apollo 13 .
Thakral, P. P., Madore, K. P., and Schacter, D. L. (2017). A role for the left angular gyrus in episodic simulation and memory. J. Neurosci. 37, 8142–8149. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1319-17.2017
Thomas, L. E., and Lleras, A. (2009). Swinging into thought: directed movement guides insight in problem solving. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 16, 719–723. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.4.719
Vohs, K. D., Redden, J. P., and Rahinel, R. (2013). Physical order produces healthy choices, generosity, and conventionality, whereas disorder produces creativity. Psychol. Sci. 24, 1860–1867. doi: 10.1177/0956797613480186
Wegbreit, E., Suzuki, S., Grabowecky, M., Kounios, J., and Beeman, M. (2012). Visual attention modulates insight versus analytic solving of verbal problems. J. Probl. Solv. 144, 724–732. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1127
Yang, W., Dietrich, A., Liu, P., Ming, D., Jin, Y., Nusbaum, H. C., et al. (2016). Prototypes are key heuristic information in insight problem solving. Creat. Res. J. 28, 67–77. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1125274
Yoruk, S., and Runco, M. A. (2014). Neuroscience of divergent thinking. Activ. Nervosa Superior 56, 1–16. doi: 10.1007/BF03379602
Zabelina, D., Saporta, A., and Beeman, M. (2016). Flexible or leaky attention in creative people? Distinct patterns of attention for different types of creative thinking. Mem Cognit . 44, 488–498. doi: 10.3758/s13421-015-0569-4
Keywords: creativity, problem-solving, insight, attention network, salience network, default mode network
Citation: Sarathy V (2018) Real World Problem-Solving. Front. Hum. Neurosci . 12:261. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00261
Received: 03 August 2017; Accepted: 06 June 2018; Published: 26 June 2018.
Copyright © 2018 Sarathy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Vasanth Sarathy, [email protected]