On Problem-Solving as Parallel Processing in a Network with the Limited Number of Connections Between Neuron-Like Units
Main Article Content
Abstract
Problem-solving is considered a sequential process, when one thought is a prerequisite for the next one. However, most mental processes are parallel. Based on assumptions that thinking can be considered processing information in a network of neuron-like units functioning in parallel, we hypothesized parallel processing always occurs in problem-solving. We suggest there are individual differences regarding the easiness of the emergence of task-related but supplementary thoughts that can be applied to elucidate how parallel processing influences problem-solving. A questionnaire on the emergence of supplementary thoughts was designed. It was hypothesized there may be positive correlation coefficients between scores on the questionnaire and scores on problem-solving tasks and the times taken to perform these tasks. A total of 700 freelancers participated in three experiments. Four tasks were used to characterize problem-solving. To study the relationship between parallel processing and processing speed the simple reaction time task was used. A short-term memory task was used to investigate the relationship between parallel processing and working memory. Cronbach's alpha for the questionnaire was 0.683. All correlation coefficients between scores on the questionnaire and the variables derived from the problem-solving tasks were significant. A correlation coefficient between scores on the short-term memory task and scores on the questionnaire was insignificant. A partial correlation between reaction times and scores on the questionnaire was insignificant. There was a positive correlation between scores on the questionnaire and age. Thus, unlike other characteristics associated with flexibility in thinking, parallel processing is not deteriorated with age. An explanation for this fact is suggested.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Siew C S, Wulff DU, Beckage N M, Kenett YN. Cognitive network science: A review of research on cognition through the lens of network representations, processes, and dynamics. 2019; Complexity: doi.org/10.1155/2019/2108423
3. French RM . The computational modeling of analogy-making. Trends in cognitive Sciences. 2002; 6(5): 200-205.
4. Hélie S, Sun R. Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: a unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychological review. 2010; 117(3): 994-1024.
5. Stoianov IP, Zorzi M, Umilta C. A connectionist model of simple mental arithmetic. Proceedings of EuroCogSci. 2019; 03:313-318.
6. Sloman SA. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin. 1996; 119: 3–22.
7. Dijksterhuis A, Nordgren LF. A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological science. 2006; 1(2): 95-109.
8. Kail R, Salthouse TA. Processing speed as a mental capacity. Acta psychologica. 1994;86(2-3): 199-225.
9. Sheppard LD, Vernon PA. Intelligence and speed of information processing: A review of 50 years of research. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008; 44: 535−551.
10. Conway AR, Getz S J, Macnamara B, Engel de Abreu PMJ Working memory and intelligence. The Cambridge handbook of intelligence. 2011; 394- 418.
11. Conway A R, Macnamara BN, de Abreu PME .Working memory and intelligence: An overview. Working Memory. 2013; 27-50.
12. Danek A H, Williams J, Wiley J. Closing the gap: connecting sudden representational change to the subjective Aha! experience in insightful problem solving. Psychological research. 2018; 84: 111–119.
13. Weisberg R W. Toward an integrated theory of insight in problem solving. Thinking& Reasoning. 2015; 21(1): 5-39.
14. Rodina ON Prudkov PN. Testing of a Russian-language version of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Voprosy Psikhologii. 2019; (4): 155-162 (in Russian).
15. Toplak M E, West R F, Stanovich K E. Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning. 2014; 20(2): 147-168.
16. Pennycook G. A perspective on the theoretical foun-dation of dual-process models. Dual process theory. 2017; 2: 13-35
17. Eysenck HJ, Louk AN, Khorol IS. Check your IQ. 1972 (in Russian).
18. Cowan N. What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? Progress in brain research. 2008; 169: 323-338.
19. Aben B, Stapert S, Blokland A. About the distinction between working memory and short-term memory. Frontiers in psychology. 2012; 3: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00301
20. Unsworth N, Engle RW. On the division of short-term and working memory: an examination of simple and complex span and their relation to higher order abilities. Psychological bulletin. 2007; 133(6): 1038-1066.
21. Nadel L, Hardt O. Update on memory systems and processes. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011; 36(1): 251-273.
22. Frey A, Bosse ML. Perceptual span, visual span, and visual attention span: Three potential ways to quantify limits on visual processing during reading. Visual Cognition. 2018; 26(6): 412-429.
23. GrÉGoire J, Van Der Linden M. Effect of age on forward and backward digit spans. Aging, neuropsychology, and cognition. 1997; 4(2): 140-149.
24. Deary I, Der G, Ford G. Reaction times and intelligence differences: A population-based cohort study. Intelligence. 200l; 29: 389−399.
25. Grudnik JL, Kranzler JH. Meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and inspection time. Intelligence. 2001; 29: 523−535.
26. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for behavioral sciences. 2013.
27. O’Brien R M. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality Quantity. 2007; 41 (5): doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
28. Deary I J, Der G. Reaction time, age, and cognitive ability: Longitudinal findings from age 16 to 63 years in representative population samples. Aging, Neuropsychology, and cognition. 2005; 12(2): 187-215.
29. Gregory T, Nettelbeck T, Howard S, and Wilson C. Inspection time: a biomarker for cognitive decline. Intelligence. 2008; 36: 664–671.
30. Hester R L, Kinsella GJ, Ong BEN (2004). Effect of age on forward and backward span tasks. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: JINS. 2004; 10(4): 475-481.
31. Tucker-Drob EM, De la Fuente J, Köhncke Y, Brandmaier AM, Nyberg L, Lindenberger U. A strong dependency between changes in fluid and crystallized abilities in human cognitive aging. Science Advances. 2022; 8(5): eabj2422.
32. Hadamard J. An essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field.1954.
33. Lubart TI. Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity research journal. 2001; 13(3-4): 295-308.
34. Csikszentmihalyi M. The domain of creativity. Theories of Creativity.1990: 190-212.
35. Sloman SA. Two systems of reasoning. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. 2002; https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.024
36. Pennycook G, Fugelsang JA, Koehler DJ. What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology. 2015; 80: 34–72.
37. Stephens RG, Dunn JC, Hayes BK (2018). Are there two processes in reasoning? The dimensionality of in-ductive and deductive inferences. Psychological Re-view. 2018; 125(2): 218–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000088
38. Hogstrom LJ, Westlye LT, Walhovd KB, Fjell AM (2013). The structure of the cerebral cortex across adult life: age-related patterns of surface area, thickness, and gyrification. Cerebral cortex. 2013; 23(11): 2521-2530.
39. McGinnis SM., Brickhouse M, Pascual B, Dickerson BC (2011). Age-related changes in the thickness of cortical zones in humans. Brain topography. 2011; 24(3-4): 279-291.
40. Sele S, Liem F, Mérillat S, Jäncke L (2021). Age-related decline in the brain: a longitudinal study on inter-individual variability of cortical thickness, area, volume, and cognition. NeuroImage. 2021; 240: doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118370 .