Cognitive insight phenomenon is one of the core components of creativity. Depending on brain imaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or electrophysiological measures such as event-related potentials (ERPs), in the past ten years, neural correlates study of insight has been developed rapidly. During the time, numerous valuable studies have adopted RAT (CRAT) or Chinese logogriph to explore the neural basis of insight problem solving. Although the two style tests have been viewed as excellent materials, most studies using RAT or logogriph fail to report consistent findings. Inconsistent findings may come from different analysis method, experimental paradigm or other control variable. We think that the two style test based different cultures may have similar cognitive process, but distinct cognitive component would be existed in the two style cognitive insight. To explore the common and distinct cognitive component underlying logogriph and remote associate test, we selected Chinese remote associates test (RAT) and logogriph of Chinese characters as the materials and adopted spontaneous insight within-task comparison paradigm in the study. Fourteen participants (6 males) were recruited in the ERP experiment. Each trial began with a central fixation cross for 500ms, and then the insight questions (logogriph or RAT) was presented in the center of screen for 10 sec. Participants were instructed to try to work out the solution to the question within this 10ms. After a 500ms fixation cross, the possible answer or solution to the question was then presented in the center of the screen for 3 sec, followed by a random interval ranging from 300 to 500ms. Participants were required to press the “1” or “2” key of number keyboard to indicate whether they got the right answers. If they think of the answer but it might not be correct, they were asked to press “1” key with their index finger of right hand; if they did not think of a answer, they do not need to press any key. When the right answer was displayed on the screen, they were required to press “1” key if their own answer were consistent to the right answer; if their own answer were not consistent to the right answer, they were asked to press “2” key. In the present study, we mainly forced on the correct reaction, which the participants guessed an answer and it was consistent with the subsequent correct answer. So the dependent variables including accurate rate and right reaction time. Behavioral data showed that logogriph problems were more difficult for subjects to solve, compared to solving RAT, F(1,13)=8.40, p<0.001, the average number of problems that subjects solved successfully for logogriph, RAT were 32±6、48±6, respectively. However, there were no differences between logogriph (RT(logogriph)=4273±367ms) and RAT(RT(RAT)=4198±737ms) across mean right RTs ( F(1,13)=0.72, p>0.05),which indicated that both of insight problems right RTs were consistent. ERP waveform analysis revealed that the anterior P170 were elicited by logogriph and RAT, there were no main effects of task type for amplitudes of the component. Successfully solving logogriph elicited a more positive defection (P650) than RAT responses did in 600~700ms, but there was no significant difference among the two responses in -1600~-1000ms with the baseline prior-response 200 ms. It is remarkable that successfully solving logogriph elicited a more positive defection than RAT responses did in -1000~-300 ms, and voltage maps of the difference waves (logogriph–RAT) showed strong activity in the right frontal regions. These results imply that two style problems have common cognitive components in the whole cognitive insight, but in restructuring stage and Aha experience stage, both of the cognitive components have relative differences. We inferred that the different of feeling of suddenness may result from inconsistent restructuring.