| Literature DB >> 35310227 |
Ying Hu1, Jieqian Ouyang1, Huazhen Wang1, Juan Zhang2, An Liu3, Xiaolei Min1, Xing Du1.
Abstract
Extant research on design thinking is subjective and limited. This manuscript combines protocol analysis and electroencephalogram (EEG) to read design thoughts in the core design activities of concept generation phase. The results suggest that alpha band power had event related synchronization (ERS) in the scenario task and divergent thinking occupies a dominant position. However, it had event related desynchronization (ERD) in analogy and inference activities, etc., and it is stronger for mental pressure and exercised cognitive processing. In addition, the parietooccipital area differs significantly from other brain areas in most design activities. This study explores the relationship of different design thinking and EEG data, which is innovative and professional in the field of design, providing a more objective data basis and evaluation method for future applied research and diverse educational practices.Entities:
Keywords: EEG; design cognition; design process; design research; research methods
Year: 2022 PMID: 35310227 PMCID: PMC8928580 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.832194
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Comprehensive analysis of elements of thinking and EEG (frequency band, brain area, and traits).
| Thinking | Frequency bands | Area | Features | Methods | |||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| α | θ | β | γ | Anteriofrontal | Parietotemporal | Centrotemporal | Temples | Occipital | Spectral power | Task-related power (TRP) (ERD/ERS) | |
| Figural creative ideation | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Divergent thinking | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Convergent thinking | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Insight | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Reflection | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Mindfulness meditation | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||
Design activities and definitions.
| Design activity | Definition |
| Scenario establishment | Establishing the scenario of design problems |
| Scenario shift | Shifting among multiple scenarios |
| Problem defining | Defining design problems, determining limitations, principles, and rereading design requirements |
| Analogy and inference | Creating a new design plan in reference to existing cases (user needs, design plan, commercial mode, etc.) |
| Synthesis | Synthesizing multiple existing concepts (created by the designer or others) into a new plan |
| Mutation | Creating a new plan free from all references |
| Reflection | Does the plan meet the limitations and design principles? Is it meaningful? |
FIGURE 1Task information for problem defining.
FIGURE 2Task information for mutation.
FIGURE 3EEG electrode positions (left) and experiment site (right).
FIGURE 4Experiment duration and procedures.
Results of retrospective voice coding in reflection stage.
| Reflection | ||||
| Start | End | Video Data | Code | Video data |
|
| 0:36:04 | Causing extra cost to the company is absolutely out of the question | Reflection |
|
|
| 0:36:15 | Other aspects are quite feasible. Then I thought about how to control this extra expense. The reward can be offered once a week – but this is a preliminary idea | No code | |
|
| 0:36:24 | Another problem with this idea for employees is that the capsules are random. The capsules they take may not be the right ones | Reflection | |
|
| 0:36:53 | So I still want to provide a way to change capsules. Then I thought that since it’s a company, there must be performance ranking. You can change the frequency to once a week, or once a month. What’s the benefit for those ranking atop? For example, if you are the first, you can choose capsules directly. If you are the second, you will have a chance to change capsules. If you are the third, just forget about it. It’s based on their performance | No code | |
FIGURE 5Mean of TRP in different brain areas.
TRP ANOVA in different design activities.
| ANOVA | |||||
| Dependent variable: TRP | |||||
| Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
| Sig. | |
| Between group | 190.703 | 4 | 47.676 | 63.248 | 0.000 |
| Within group | 1353.063 | 1795 | 0.754 | ||
| Total | 1543.766 | 1799 | |||
TRP ANOVA in different brain areas.
| ANOVA | ||||||
| Dependent variable: TRP | Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
| Sig. | |
| Anteriofrontal | Between groups | 36.782 | 4 | 9.196 | 11.122 | 0.000 |
| Within groups | 243.908 | 295 | 0.827 | |||
| Total | 280.691 | 299 | ||||
| Frontocentral | Between groups | 36.756 | 4 | 9.189 | 11.134 | 0.000 |
| Within groups | 243.463 | 295 | 0.825 | |||
| Total | 280.219 | 299 | ||||
| Centrotemporal | Between groups | 37.097 | 4 | 9.274 | 12.329 | 0.000 |
| Within groups | 221.909 | 295 | 0.752 | |||
| Total | 259.006 | 299 | ||||
| Centroparietal | Between groups | 37.788 | 4 | 9.447 | 12.184 | 0.000 |
| Within groups | 228.724 | 295 | 0.775 | |||
| Total | 266.512 | 299 | ||||
| Parietotemporal | Between groups | 31.033 | 4 | 7.758 | 10.960 | 0.000 |
| Within groups | 208.819 | 295 | 0.708 | |||
| Total | 239.851 | 299 | ||||
| Parieto-occipital | Between groups | 17.138 | 4 | 4.284 | 6.542 | 0.000 |
| Within groups | 193.209 | 295 | 0.655 | |||
| Total | 210.347 | 299 | ||||
Analogy and inference: theta-band ANOVA.
| Tests of between-subjects effects | |||||
| Dependent variable: TRP | |||||
| Source | Type III sum of Squares | df | Mean square |
| Sig. |
| Corrected model | 63.100 | 15 | 4.207 | 21.874 | 0.000 |
| Intercept | 200.980 | 1 | 200.980 | 1045.093 | 0.000 |
| Hemispheres | 1.621 | 1 | 1.621 | 8.428 | 0.005 |
| Areas of brain | 21.470 | 5 | 4.294 | 22.329 | 0.000 |
| Group | 40.009 | 9 | 4.445 | 23.116 | 0.000 |
| Error | 20.000 | 104 | .192 | ||
| Total | 284.080 | 120 | |||
| Corrected total | 83.100 | 119 | |||
Brain areas: F = 22.329, p = 0 < 0.01, η2 = 0.518. There is a high level of significance, which means brain areas have significant impacts on theta activity (which differs significantly from one brain area to another) in inference task.
Hemiencephalon: F = 8.428, p = 0.005 < 0.01, η2 = 0.075. There is significance, which means hemiencephalon has significant impacts on theta activity in inference task.
Analogy and inference: theta-band Bonferroni multiple comparison.
| Bonferroni | ||||||
| Dependent variable: TRP | ||||||
| (I) Areas of brain | (J) Areas of brain | Mean difference (I-J) | Std. error | Sig. | 95% confidence interval | |
| Lower bound | Upper bound | |||||
| Parieto-occipital | Anteriofrontal | −1.02542304 | 0.138675371 | 0.000 | −1.30042151 | −0.75042458 |
| Frontocentral | −1.25912857 | 0.138675371 | 0.000 | −1.53412703 | −0.98413010 | |
| Centrotemporal | −1.00036458 | 0.138675371 | 0.000 | −1.27536305 | −0.72536612 | |
| Centroparietal | −1.22157663 | 0.138675371 | 0.000 | −1.49657510 | −0.94657817 | |
| Parietotemporal | −0.82141140 | 0.138675371 | 0.000 | −1.09640986 | −0.54641293 | |
Based on observed means. The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 0.192. *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
FIGURE 6Analogy and inference: theta-band TRP. Each line represents the data of 9 different participants in different area.