表徵轉換理論（Knoblich, Ohlsson, Haider, & Rhenius, 1999）主張頓悟來自於轉換無效問題表徵。為了檢驗該主張，Knoblich等（2001）使用火柴棒算術問題作業，發現成功組於關鍵區域的凝視時間百分比隨解題時段增加，而不成功組則無。不同於Knoblich等僅分析關鍵區域，本研究則分析參與者於關鍵、固著與其他區域之凝視時間分配在不同解題時段的轉變，以考驗頓悟性問題之解題是否繫於無效問題表徵的轉換。此外，表徵轉換理論認為個體接觸問題後會形成無效問題表徵，但並未視固著無效問題表徵程度為影響問題表徵轉換之因素。因此，本研究將確認固著無效問題表徵程度與表徵轉換的因果關係。本研究進行兩個實驗，在實驗一，紀錄38位參與者於解答火柴棒算術問題圖時的眼動資料，比較成功組與不成功組在不同問題元素區域與不同解題時段之凝視時間百分比；而為了確認個體無效問題表徵的固著程度與表徵轉換之因果關係，在實驗二，則以注意引導的操弄方式，將94位參與者分派至三種實驗處理：閃爍固著區域組、閃爍關鍵區域組與無處理的控制組，期能分別促進參與者有效與無效問題表徵，並觀察參與者的答題表現與眼動軌跡。主要結果有二，第一，發現解題成功組有發生無效問題表徵的轉換，而不成功組則無，並且不成功組於初期形成無效問題表徵，成功組則無。第二，發現在解題困境時期，成功組於無效問題表徵之固著程度高於不成功組，並且閃爍固著區域組之答題表現較閃爍關鍵區域組差。研究結果顯示，無效問題表徵的轉換為解決頓悟性問題解題的關鍵特徵，並支持無效問題表徵之固著程度與頓悟性問題表徵轉換的因果關係，以擴展表徵轉換理論。

Representational Change Theory (Knoblich, Ohlsson, Haider, & Rhenius, 1999) claims that constructing the invalid presentation of insight problem causes insight. To examine the notion, Knoblich et al.(2001) found that the successful and unsuccessful participants differed in percentage of the fixation time spent on crucial area of the matchstick arithmetic problem diagram during the successive intervals of the problem solving period. The present study not only took the crucial area that Knoblich et al. barely considered but also the fixed area and other area to verify the idea that constructing the invalid presentation of insight problem causes insight. Besides, although the theory thinks the invalid presentation forms right after the individual interacts with problem, it dosen’t consider the level of fixing with the invalid presentation. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to confirm that the level of being stuck with the invalid presentation consequently affects representation change. This study conducted two experiments. In experiment 1, eye movements of 38 participants were recorded when solving the matchstick arithmetic problem, and then compared percentage of the fixation time of the successful and unsuccessful ones in different areas on the problem diagram and in different intervals during problem solving；To confirm that the level of fixing in the invalid presentation consequently affects representation change, in experiment 2, 94 participants were assigned randomly to three groups, and guilded their attension to the fixed area and crucial area repectively by flashing these areas；meanwhile the eye movements and scores are recorded. The results showed that, firstly, it occured to the successful participants to revise the invalid presentation, but it didnt happen to the unsuccessful ones. Besides, the invalid presentation are found in the unsuccessful ones, but not for the successful ones. Secondly, the results showed that duing the impasse period, the level of fixing in the invalid presentation of the unsuccessful ones were higher than the level of the successful ones and that the performances of the flashed fixed area gruop are worse than thoes of the flashed crucial area gruop. The results suggest that revising the invalid presentation features largely in solving insight problems and that the data supports the level of fixing in the invalid presentation consequently affects representation change, which extend Representational Change Theory.

英文文獻：
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Aha! Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere. Psychonomic Bulletin, 10, 730 -737.
Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2005). Spontaneous access and analogical incubation effects. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 207-220.
Dallob, P. I., & Dominowski, R. L. (1993). Erroneous solutions to verbal insight problems: Effects of highlighting critical material. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Phoenix, AZ.
Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1986). What is insight? Educational Horizons, 64, 177-179.
Dominowski, R. L., & Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and Problem Solving. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight (pp. 33-62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58, 1 -113.
Durso, F. T., Rea, C. B., & Dayton, T. (1994). Graph-theoretic confirmation of re-structuring during insight. Psychological Science, 2, 94-98.
Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2006). EEG alpha oscillations during the performance of the verbal creativity tasks: Differential effects of sex and verbal intelligence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62, 46-53.
Forster, J., Friedman, R. S., Butterbach, E. B., & Sassenberg, K. (2005). Automatic effects of deviancy cues on creative cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 345-359.
Grant, E. R., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science, 14, 462-466.
Gilhooly, K. J., & Murphy, P. (2005). Differentiating insight from non-insight problems. Thinking &Reasoning, 11, 279-302.
Jones, G. (2003). Testing two cognitive theories of insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1017–1027.
Just, M., A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1984). Using eye fixation to study reading comprehension. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New Methods in Reading Comprehension Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaplan, C. A., & Simon, H. A. (1990). In search of insight. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 374-419.
Kershaw, T. C., & Ohlsson, S. (2004). Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: The case of the nine-dot problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30(1), 3-13.
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 1534 – 1555.
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., & Raney, G. E. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1000–1009.
Kohler, W. (1927). The mentality of apes (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Press.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World Press.
MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., & Chronicle, E. P. (2001). Information-processing and insight: A process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 176-201.
Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans: II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12, 181-194.
Mayer, R. E. (1995). The search for insight: Grappling with Gestalt psychology’s unanswered Questions. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. A. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806-812.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 44, 220-232.
Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 15, 238-246.
Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In M. T. Keane & K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.), Advances in the Psychology of Thinking (Vol. 1, pp. 1-44). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf Press.
Rayner, K.(1995). Eye movements and cognitive in reading, visual searach, and scene perception. In J. M. Findlay, R. Walker, & R. W. Kentridge (Eds.), Eye Movement Research: Mechanism, Processes, and Application (pp.3-21). New York: Elserier Science Publishing.
Reverberi, C., Toraldo, A., D’Agostini, S., & Skrap, M. (2005). Better without (lateral) frontal cortex? Insight problems solved by frontal patients. Brain, 128, 2882-2890.
Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 166-183.
Wakefield, J. F. (1992). Creative thinking: Problem Solving Skills and the Art Orientation. Norwood, NJ:Ablex Press..
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York :Harcourt, Brace Press.
Weisberg, R.W., & Suls, J. M. (1973). An information-processing model of Duncker’s candle problem. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 255-276.
Weisberg, R. W., & Alba, J. W. (1981). An examination of the alleged role of “fi xation” in the solution of several “insight” problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 169-192.
Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York: Freeman Press.
Weisberg, R. W. (1995). Prolegomena to theories of insight in problem solving: a taxonomy of problems. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson, (Eds.). The nature of insight (pp. 157-196). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Row Press.

中文文獻：
林緯倫、連韻文、任純慧（2005）。想得多是想得好的前提嗎？探討發散性思考能力在創意問題解決的角色。中華心理學刊，47卷，3期，211-227頁。
邱發忠（2005）。創造力認知運作機制之探究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系博士論文。