The human ability to flexibly discover alternatives without fixating on a known solution supports a variety of human creative activities. Previous research has shown that people who discover an alternative procedure relax their attentional bias to information regarding the known solutions just prior to the discovery. This study examined whether the difference in the distribution of attention between the finders and non-finders of the alternative procedure is observed from the phase of solving the problem using the trained procedure. We evaluated the characteristics of the finders' distribution of attention in situations where problem solving using a trained procedure was successful. This aspect has been little examined in previous research. Our study obtained empirical evidence for the fact that, compared to non-finders, finders pay more attention to information unrelated to the trained procedure acquired through knowledge and experience, even time when using a trained procedure. We also confirmed that this difference does not exist from the beginning of the task, but emerges during repeated use of familiar procedures. These findings indicate that in order to find an alternative procedure, one should not only divert attention from a familiar procedure just before the discovery but also pay a certain amount of attention to information unrelated to the familiar procedure even when the familiar procedure is functioning well.

No abstract

Objective The objective is to clarify the nature of cooperative moving behavior that realizes smooth traffic with others from the viewpoint of the trade-off between self-benefit and others’ benefit in the shared space. Background The shared space is not constrained by formal rules or behavioral norms, and is a potentially ambiguous situation where it is not clear who has priority. Therefore, the nature of cooperative behavior in the shared space is unclear. Method An experimental task was conducted to compare cooperative and nonurgent moving behavior regarding completion time (self-benefit), the amount of interruption (others’ benefit), and the amount of operation (cognitive effort). Results First, cooperative behavior benefits others. Second, although cooperative behavior decreases self-benefit compared to the baseline without any instructions, it can obtain relatively more self-benefit than nonurgent behavior without considering self-benefit. Third, cooperative behavior requires cognitive effort. Conclusion Cooperative behavior provides benefit to both oneself and others by spending cognitive effort in not interrupting others. Application If the nature of the cooperative behavior can be clarified, a cooperative module can be implemented into the algorithms of various mobilities.

No abstract