
A sudden flash of insight is a product of your brain. Neuroscientists track the neural activity underlying an “aha” and how it might boost memory.
Here are three words: pine, crab, sauce. There’s a fourth word that combines with each of the others to create another common word. What is it?
When the answer finally comes to you, it’ll likely feel instantaneous. You might even say “Aha!” This kind of sudden realization is known as insight, and a research team recently uncovered how the brain produces it, which suggests why insightful ideas tend to stick in our memory.
Maxi Becker, a cognitive neuroscientist at Duke University, first got interested in insight after reading the landmark 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by the historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn. “He describes how some ideas are so powerful that they can completely shift the way an entire field thinks,” she said. “That got me wondering: How does the brain come up with those kinds of ideas? How can a single thought change how we see the world?”
Such moments of insight are written across history. According to the Roman architect and engineer Vitruvius, in the third century BCE the Greek mathematician Archimedes suddenly exclaimed “Eureka!” after he slid into a bathtub and saw the water level rise by an amount equal to his submerged volume (although this tale may be apocryphal). In the 17th century, according to lore, Sir Isaac Newton had a breakthrough in understanding gravity after an apple fell on his head. In the early 1900s, Einstein came to a sudden realization that “if a man falls freely, he would not feel his weight,” which led him to his theory of relativity, as he later described in a lecture.
Insights are not limited to geniuses: We have these cognitive experiences all the time when solving riddles or dealing with social or intellectual problems. They are distinct from analytical problem-solving, such as the process of doing formulaic algebra, in which you arrive at a solution slowly and gradually as if you’re getting warmer. Instead, insights often follow periods of confusion. You never feel as if you’re getting warmer; rather, you go from cold to hot, seemingly in an instant. Or, as the neuropsychologist Donald Hebb, known for his work building neurobiological models of learning, wrote in the 1940s, sometimes “learning occurs as a single jump, an all-or-none affair.”
According to legend, the Greek mathematician Archimedes exclaimed “Eureka!” after his body caused the water level to rise in his bath, suggesting a way to calculate volume.
Ann Rosan Picture Library
An abrupt cognitive shift in how the mind understands information is known as a representational change. Although researchers have inferred sudden shifts in understanding from the behavior of subjects, they have not pinned down how the brain supports representational change.
During moments of insight, representational change typically occurs, said John Kounios, a cognitive neuroscientist at Drexel University and co-author of the book The Eureka Factor: Aha Moments, Creative Insight, and the Brain. “The question is: How is it occurring?”
While at Humboldt University of Berlin, Becker set out to uncover this neural signature of insight. Given that it’s nearly impossible to fabricate life-changing, field-altering insights in the lab, her team needed to identify a simple task that could produce a sudden feeling of understanding rather than a slowly unfolding solution.
They turned to abstracted black-and-white pictures called Mooney images, which are made by cranking up the contrast on a photograph all the way so that the subjects — a dog or a coffee mug, for example — are unrecognizable at first. The pictures pose a challenge for human brains, which typically identify objects by piecing together their different parts. But if given enough time with a Mooney image, even a few seconds, the brain can rearrange the contours to recognize the pictured object — and trigger the insightful “aha” feeling, a representational change.
Over the course of two days, Becker had study participants lie in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner, which detects blood flow in the brain as a proxy for neural activity, and view a series of 120 Mooney images. After 10 seconds of viewing a single image, the participant would indicate whether they recognized the pictured object. If they did, they would then answer a series of questions about the suddenness, positive emotion and certainty associated with their experience — three measures that have been linked to moments of insight.
Becker and her team then used neural networks to parse the fMRI data, looking to identify consistent changes in brain activity shared by participants when they correctly recognized Mooney images. They observed that when a participant noticed a hidden object, brain activity increased in the ventral occipitotemporal cortex (VOTC), a region responsible for recognizing visual patterns in the environment; the amygdala, which processes both positive and negative emotions; and the hippocampus, a deep-brain structure involved in handling memories. This activity was greater for experiences rated more certain and emotionally positive — in other words, more insightful ones.
The hippocampus is sometimes known as the brain’s “mismatch detector,” Becker said, because it reacts when an input doesn’t align with expectations. In this case, insight leads a once-meaningless image to gain meaning, going against the brain’s predictions.
These regions — the hippocampus, amygdala and VOTC — create “a plausible network of brain areas” behind representational change, said Kounios, who was not involved in the study. These findings finally “connect the psychological theory with the neural mechanism,” said Yuhua Yu, a postdoctoral researcher in neuroscience at the University of Arizona, who was also not involved with the study.
Becker and her team likely found representational change in the VOTC because of the visual nature of their stimuli. If they had chosen another type of stimulus, like words, the change would probably have appeared in language-processing areas of the brain.
Once the team had figured out which brain areas support insight, they wanted to probe whether these regions might be working together to create a lasting memory.
Since they began investigating insight, researchers have suspected that such experiences might boost memory. In his 1949 book The Organization of Behavior, Hebb wrote that “whatever insight is, we now know that it continually affects the learning of the adult mammal.” Insight not only feels notable or salient in the moment but also helps us retain new information as memory.
This memory boost, which became known as the insight-memory advantage, has since been studied in many types of problem-solving, including the unraveling of magic tricks and puzzles. “When you have an insight, you tend to be better able to remember the solution,” Becker said, compared to when you resolve a problem more gradually. She wanted to understand why.
A few days after the initial experiment, the team tested participants’ memory by having them look at more Mooney images online, including some they had seen before. Participants were better able to remember prior images that they had rated highly on the three aspects of insight. This suggested that the insight-memory advantage was real, but the team wanted to see what was going on under the hood. Did brain activity during insight predict better memory five days later?
The researchers found that the larger the activity boost in both the VOTC and the hippocampus during the initial insight, the better participants remembered the Mooney images. The big change in brain activity likely makes the experience more salient, Becker said, and salient experiences are known to better encode long-term memories.
While insight creates stronger memories of an idea, it doesn’t mean the idea is correct. Previous work has shown that the quicker, more certain and more pleasurable a solution feels, the more likely it is to be correct — but false insights can and do exist. In Becker’s study, participants wrongly identified the subjects of more than half the Mooney images they saw. Of those incorrect trials (which the researchers excluded from the analysis), the participants reported experiencing insight 40% of the time. In comparison, correct trials were accompanied by feelings of insight 65% of the time.
These kinds of studies of insight in the lab will set researchers up to look at how it functions in the real world. Once we decompose insight into “very simple tasks that we already understand well,” Becker said, we can “move on to more complex, truly creative tasks.”
As a self-described uncreative person, Yu has been particularly fascinated by insight’s role in the creative process. Creativity is “like a magic power,” she said. “A really big creative idea is [often] associated with insight because a creative idea is in some way a leap in your cognitive world, and a leap will often elicit an insight or ‘aha’ feeling.”
However, Yu is finding that insight’s role in creativity might depend on the kind of problem a person is solving. In a recent study, she asked participants to come up with metaphors for scientific concepts and asked whether they used insight as they did so. The insight-driven metaphors weren’t more or less creative than those created through analytic thinking, she found — and the participants were more likely to remember the science concepts behind the latter.
This may be because, unlike the task of seeing a hidden object in a Mooney image, creating a metaphor tends to rely on slower cognitive problem-solving rather than sudden moments of insight, Becker suggested. The effects of insight therefore likely depend on the context.
Next, Yu wants to investigate insight in more contexts. “Most of the insight research is looking at insight in the problem-solving context and in the lab setting,” Yu said. She hopes that researchers will begin investigating “insight within many other domains, like in psychotherapy, in meditation, even in psychedelic experiences.”
Beyond offering a better understanding of how the human brain learns, these findings could have applications in classrooms. Kounios believes that applying insight-boosting strategies to teaching could lead to better learning outcomes for students. Insight seems to be a powerful and positive experience that generates accurate solutions, confidence in our answers and strong memories.
“It’s very intensive for a teacher to do this, but a lot of really good teachers try to get the students to have the insights themselves about how something works, and that will burn it into their memories,” Kounios said. “Another aspect of that [is], it’s very motivating, too.”
It’s a nice feeling when your brain suddenly comes up with an answer. Perhaps you’ve even experienced that feeling since reading this piece’s first sentence. Maybe it even hit you like an apple on the head.
The "aha" moment is also a cognitive risk, since it's often the moment we stop looking for more answers.
This is the premise of a really good article I reccommend to anyone, the Seductions of Clarity by C. Thi Nguyen (https://philarchive.org/rec/NGUTSO-2)
which is of course used as a trap by Charlatans Who want to trigger that aha hiding that they are the ones manipulating you. In fact the whole point of humanities is learning to build a shield and your own rethoric Sword against bullshit
This happens to people when they’re stoned or delusional. They have a false aha moment and false, but deep certainty of their own brilliance.
It is quite literally the source of one of our most dangerous failure modes.
Similar to this is the Thought Terminating Cliche
I'm convincing myself that the root of all evils^H^H^H^H^Hpoor thinking and argumentation generally arises due to not thinking further and more critically. Those clichés are just some nicely packaged, ready-made products to induce this.
Off topic but of all the Mooney images ever made, why a scary clown?
That aside, working with complex systems and constraints there often isn't an aha moment, there's just a decision to be made. As someone who loves that aha moment, I can get stuck trying to figure out perfect from good enough. Interesting to see there is indeed a positive emotion correlated with that aha moment that keeps people searching for solutions.
I wonder if there's a correlation between addiction and this aha moment. Like you get drunk and suddenly "aha!" those big unresolvable problems don't matter. The next morning they matter again until, aha, beer:30 hits.
> working with complex systems and constraints there often isn't an aha moment
You only get the a-ha moment when there's essentially one discrete piece of information needed to decide between alternatives. That doesn't apply to most problems.
Your brain simultaneously assigns probabilities to possible solutions, and in certain cases there's an information update that sets one solution to probability 1 and the others to 0. If your brain is actively expending energy keeping these possibilities warm simultaneously, then this will naturally lead to a rapid change in energy which will feel like something because it's a change in the flow of neuro chemicals.
It's not obvious that it would feel pleasant. But since the nucleus accumbens is active during problems solving then it's not entirely surprising that the the NAc gets extra stimulated in the rush of energy as the probabilities collapse and weights get updated to the real solution.
But relatively few problems require you to simultaneously juggle multiple possible solutions and pieces of evidence that are brought together in a single instant. So chasing that feeling is generally a poor strategy.
This is what came to mind for me reading the article as well: The difference between juggling, rotating, feeling out a thousand puzzle pieces that either fit or don't fit the well-defined hole you have, versus having the hole, having the puzzle-piece-'blank' that you're very slowly and deliberately chipping away at, sanding down, until it fits(as you know from the very start it will).
One is a trickle, the other a rush.
I totally believe there's a correlation between addiction and the aha moment. You don't even need to "aha!" with facts; pairing emotion to a simple fact will suffice.
Try pairing a feeling to: "So THAT'S how a mouse cursor moves"
"So THAT'S why revolving doors move clockwise!"
"So THAT'S why lights at night feel cosy!"
With a little practice, you can arbitrarily get 'aha' moments. I assume the good feeling is some sort of dopamine release where my brain is rewarding me for "figuring something out," even though I've kind if hijacked the mechanism.
> I wonder if there's a correlation between addiction and this aha moment.
Are you kidding? I've been chasing that epiphany dragon for decades and so has everyone else in the shop. Ever feel like you've got one foot out the door once you comprehend the systems you work with?
Looks at the mirror and nodd
I really wish we could move beyond fMRI for brain studies. We have no good models for any insights beyond “this region of the brain lights up.” It’s medieval. Neurophrenology. Change my mind.
I work in neurotech with EEG and many other consumer neuro companies are working with fNIRS.
I completely agree with you that fMRI along with EEG and fNIRS isn't giving us true insight into how thought works.
However, it doesn't mean they are completely invaluable when brain activity and stimulation can be manipulated, and that change can be measured through measures other than just the brain activity itself.
For example, our work at https://affectablesleep.com stimulates slow-wave activity during sleep, a core component of what we refer to as sleep's restorative function.
Though we measure and see the change in brain activity, research has also measured changes in cortisol, HRV, immune function, etc etc.
A friend is working on neurostimulation in depression and their background is in fMRI, though for accessibility they are working with EEG.
The point is, you're right, our understanding of the brain is not much more than medieval, but that doesn't mean it is completely invaluable.
I believe it is not valuable when we're trying to understand the "aha" moment, simply by looking at blood-flow in the brain, as this article suggests.
I've always found the comparisons between "amateur" and a "professional" interesting [1], where professionals show spatially tighter activity and overall lower activity. So, it sometimes largely imaging areas where optimization hasn't happened yet.
Seems like there would still be some use in looking at what's physically there. And, knowing that all humans have roughly the same activity patterns seems very important, in the sense that we're not some blank slate for concepts to be encoded.
you're not wrong. unfortunately it's about the only thing that will pass an ethics board, outside of patients who are already having neurosurgery and consent to more invasive procedures.