Dominant Strategies for Solving Sensorimotor Tasks in Students with Different Cognitive Resource Experience
https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2024-26-5-701-713
Abstract
The article introduces a new method for diagnosing the preferable cognitive resource strategy in university students. One’s personal experience of using cognitive resources defines the dominant strategies for solving sensorimotor tasks. Cognitive resource patterns can be described by using particular psychological indicators in order to select the optimal analysis method. The new method made it possible to model the situation of solving sensorimotor tasks and develop criteria for determining the strategies employed by university students to solve cognitive tasks in experimental conditions. The research involved 127 first-year students (18 y.o.) of Psychology, Tomsk State University. The strategies used by the students to solve sensorimotor tasks ranged from scarcity and heterogeneity to positive experience in cognitive resource application. Sensorimotor tasks proved to be an effective diagnostic marker of the cognitive development level during university education. The method also proved applicable as a cognitive simulator to develop optimal strategies in solving sensorimotor tasks of various levels of difficulty, as well as to reduce the existing deficiency in cognitive experience.
Keywords
sensorimotor task,
decision-making strategies,
cognitive resource,
modality of experience,
cognitive simulator
Supporting agencies: This research was part of State Assignment No. FSWM-2020-0040 from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russia: Studying and strategizing individual cognitive academic environment.
About the Authors
Olga M. Krasnoryadtseva
Tomsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Scopus Author ID: 57193953601
Tomsk
Evgeniya V. Eremina
Tomsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Scopus Author ID: 57451881100
Tomsk
Maria A. Podoinitsina
Tomsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Scopus Author ID: 58914222100
Tomsk
References
1. Agafonov A. Yu., Kozlov D. D. Cognitive strategies in the work of consciousness and the unconscious. Izvestiya of Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2014, 16(2-4): 864–872. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/tbrrrd
2. Balanev D. Yu., Smeshko E. V., Koch D. A. Diagnostic capabilities of the software-hardware complex "motor components of cognitive problem solving". Sibirskiy Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal, 2022, (85): 100–117. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/17267080/85/5
3. Berezina T. N. Emotional security of educational environment and cognitive processes. Modern education, 2019, (3): 29–43. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8736.2019.3.29191
4. Bityutskaya E. V., Kavtaradze D. N. Simulation puzzle game as a model for solving a difficult life task. Lomonosov Psychology Journal, 2019, (3): 3–26. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.11621/vsp.2019.03.03
5. Zakharevskaya E. A. Experimental research of interrelationship of indicators of psychomotor activity with typological features of personality. Azimuth of Scientific Research: Pedagogy and Psychology, 2018, 7(3): 291–294. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ybdaex
6. Ivanova S. V. Formation of a "man cognizing" as a relevant task of education. Values and Meanings, 2021, 1(71): 44–49. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/2071-6427-2021-1-44-49
7. Krasnoryadtseva O. M., Eremina E. V., Podoinitsina M. A., Vaulina T. A. Using a cognitive simulator: Possibilities for minimizing self-regulatory deficits in cognitive activity in primary schoolchildren. Russian Psychological Journal, 2023, 20(4): 135–152. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/kpigyj
8. Kuritsyn A. A., Chistopolskaya A. V. The role of motor component in insight problem solving. Psychology, Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2020, 17(4): 645–657. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2020-4-645-657
9. Loginov N. I., Spiridonov V. F., Kurbanov K. A., Ardislamov V. V., Ammalainen A. V., Vyazovkina V. K. Sustainable individual differences in preference of mental vs. embodied strategies in problem solving. Cognitive Science in Moscow: New research: Proc. Conf., Moscow, 23–24 Jun 2021. Moscow: Buki-Vedi; IPPP, 2021, 255–260. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qdisnl
10. Makarov I. N., Kutuzova A. B. Effect of motor training on chunk separation in insight tasks. PSY-HSE: Proc. Intern. Sci. Conf., Moscow, 31 Oct –2 Nov 2019. Moscow: HSE, 2020, 145–147. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/vbeqqo
11. Okulov S. M., Lyalin A. V. Hanoi Towers. Moscow: BINOM. Lab. znanii, 2008, 245. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qmsvvb
12. Poddiakov A. N. Research instruments: Objects created to study thinking as cognitive artifacts. Proceedings of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2024, 4(1): 4–20. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/tkdbng
13. Sevostyanov D. A. Motor inversions as a resource for individualizing human activity. Mundi Housing, 2020, 1(1): 59–80. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46539/cmj.v1i1.3
14. Sibiryakov I. V. The phenomenon of cognitia in scientific discourse. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 2014, (6): 85–88. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/snjbqr
15. Spiridonov V. F., Lifanova S. S. Insight and mental operators: Are step by step solutions of insight tasks possible? Psychology, Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2013, 10(3): 54–63. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/shbfwv
16. Sushchin M. A. Situated and embodied cognition as a research program in cognitive science. Naukovedcheskie issledovaniya, 2019, (2019): 158–178. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31249/scis/2019.00.10
17. Chistopolskaya A. V., Lazareva N. Yu., Markina P. N., Vladimirov I. Yu. The concept of high-level and low-level processes in cognitive psychology. S. Olsson's representational change theory from the position of the level approach. Vestnik IarGU. Seriya Gumanitarnye nauki, 2019, (3): 94–101. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/dvnclw
18. Anders R., Oravecz Z., Alario F.-X. Improved information pooling for hierarchical cognitive models through multiple and covaried regression. Behavior Research Methods, 2018, 50: 989–1010. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0921-7
19. Bull R., Espy K. A., Senn T. E. A comparison of performance on the Towers of London and Hanoi in young children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2004, 45(4): 743–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00268.x
20. Chandler M. C., Gerde H. K., Bowles R. P., McRoy K. Z., Pontifex M. B., Bingham G. E. Self-regulation moderates the relationship between fine motor skills and writing in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2021, 57: 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.06.010
21. Piek J. P., Dawson L., Smith L. M., Gasson N. The role of early fine and gross motor development on later motor and cognitive ability. Human Movement Science, 2008, 27(5): 668–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.11.002
22. Schneegans S., Schöner G. Dynamic field theory as a framework for understanding embodied cognition. Handbook of Cognitive Science, eds. Calvo P., Gomila A. Elsevier Ltd., 2008, 241–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-046616-3.00013-X
23. Thomas L. E., Lleras A. Swinging into thought: Directed movement guides insight in problem solving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2009, 16(4): 719–723. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.719
24. Werner K., Raab M. Moving your eyes to solution: Effects of movement priming on problem solving. Experimental Psychology, 2013, 60(6): 403–409. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000213
25. Werner K., Raab M., Fischer M. H. Moving arms: The effects of sensorimotor information on the problem-solving process. Thinking & Reasoning, 2019, 25(2): 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1494630
Review
For citations:
Krasnoryadtseva O.M., Eremina E.V., Podoinitsina M.A. Dominant Strategies for Solving Sensorimotor Tasks in Students with Different Cognitive Resource Experience. SibScript. 2024;26(5):701-713. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2024-26-5-701-713
Views:
152
Email this article 