Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-vcmr7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-13T22:04:26.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL ACTIVATIONS OF NOVICE AND EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS WHEN DESIGNING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING

Part of: Human Behaviour and Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

S. Vieira ,
J. Gero ,
V. Gattol ,
J. Delmoral ,
S. Li ,
G. Cascini  and
A. Fernandes
S. Vieira*
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
J. Gero
Affiliation:
UNC Charlotte, United States of America
V. Gattol
Affiliation:
AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Austria
J. Delmoral
Affiliation:
University of Porto, Portugal
S. Li
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
G. Cascini
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
A. Fernandes
Affiliation:
University of Porto, Portugal
*
*sonia.dasilvavieira@polimi.it

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We present results from an EEG experiment EEG to measure neurophysiological activation to study novice and experienced designers when designing and problem-solving. We adopted and extended the tasks described in a previous fMRI study. The block experiment consists of 3 tasks: problem-solving, basic design, and open layout design. The block is preceded by a familiarizing pre-task and extended to an open design sketching task. Results from 36 sessions of mechanical engineers and industrial designers indicate significant differences in activations between the problem-solving and the design tasks.

Keywords

design scienceproblem solvingnovicesexperienceddesign thinking

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1569 - 1578
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Abrahams, A. (2019), The neuroscience of creativity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316816981Google Scholar
Alexiou, K. et al. (2009), “Exploring the neurological basis of design cognition using brain imaging: some preliminary results”, Design Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 623–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, S., Wallace, K.M. and Blessing, L.T.M. (2003), “Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-002-0023-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atman, C.J. et al. (1999), “A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes”, Design Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, L.J., Ormerod, T.C. and Morley, N.J. (2004), “Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 495–508. doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crutcher, R.J. (1994), “Telling what we know: The use of verbal report methodologies in psychological research”, Psych. Sci. Vol. 5, pp. 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00619.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. and Clayburn Cross, A. (1998), “Expertise in Engineering Design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 141–149. https://doi.org/1007/BF01607156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, W. et al. (2006), “Canonical correlation analysis applied to remove muscle artifacts from the electroencephalogram”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 53, pp. 2583–2587. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2006.879459CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickter, C. and Kieffaber, P. (2014), EEG Methods for the Psychological Sciences. Sage, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446270356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution”, Design Studies Vol. 22, pp. 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyfus, H., and Dreyfus, S. (1988), Mind over Machine. Free Press.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S. (1990), “Design Prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design”, AI Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v11i4.854Google Scholar
Goel, V. and Pirolli, P. (1989), “Motivating the Notion of Generic Design within Information Processing Theory: The Design Problem Space”, AI Magazine Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v10i1.726Google Scholar
Goel, V. and Pirolli, P. (1992), “The structure of design problem spaces”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 16, pp.395–429. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1603_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göker, M. (1997), “The effects of experience during design problem solving”, Design Studies, Vol 18, pp.405–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00009-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinterberger, T., Zlabinger, M. and Blaser, K. (2014), “Neurophysiological correlates of various mental perspectives”, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Vol 8, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00637CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ho, C.H. (2001), “Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: differences between novices and experts”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00030-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, J., Gero, J.S., Yen, C. (2014), “Exploring designing styles using Problem-Solution indexes”, In Gero, J.S. (ed), Design Computing and Cognition’12, Springer, pp. 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0Google Scholar
Jones, J. C. and Thornley, D. G. (eds). (1963), Conference on Design Methods. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. and Simon, H. (1993), Protocol Analysis; Verbal Reports as Data, MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagtap, S. (2018), “Shaping products: Differences between expert and novice industrial designers”, 15th International Design Conference. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kan, J. W. T. and Gero, J. S. (2017), Quantitative Methods for Studying Design Protocols. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0984-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavakli, M. and Gero, J. (2002), “The Structure of Concurrent Cognitive Actions: a case study on novice and expert designers”, Design Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00021-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, C. and Cross, N. (2006), “Solution driven versus problem driven design: Strategies and outcomes”, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp.527–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, C. et al. (2017), “Visual attention and association: An electroencephalography study in expert designers”, Design Studies Vol. 48, pp. 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, L. et al. (2018), “An EEG study of the relationship between design problem statements and cognitive behaviors during conceptual design”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing Vol. 32, pp. 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060417000683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martindale, C. and Hines, D. (1975), “Creativity and Cortical activation during Creative, Intellectual and EEG Feedback Tasks”, Biological Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(75)90011-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vieira, S. et al. (2019a), “Understanding the design neurocognition of mechanical engineers when designing and problem-solving”, ASME, https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2019-97838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vieira, S. et al. (2019b), “Comparing the Design Neurocognition of Mechanical Engineers and Architects: A Study of the Effect of Designer's Domain”. in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), Delft, The Netherlands, 5-8 August, p. 1853- 1862. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, W. (2009), “Design: one, but in different forms”, Design Studies Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 187–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vos, D. et al. (2010), “Removal of muscle artifacts from EEG recordings of spoken language production”, Neuroinform, Vol. 8, pp. 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-010-9071-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar