Developing a neurally informed ontology of creativity measurement

Kenett, Yoed N.; Kraemer, David J. M.; Alfred, Katherine L.; Colaizzi, Griffin A.; Cortes, Robert A.; Green, Adam E.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117166

Cited by 27 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We identified how tasks were inter-related using a bottom-up feature-based approach (assuming equally important features), and how these inter-relationships give rise to overarching prosocial categories. This is in contrast to the more top-down approaches based on expert-models that have been used to map cognitive constructs like creativity ( Kenett et al. , 2020 ), cognitive control ( Lenartowicz et al.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 96%

A feature-based network analysis and fMRI meta-analysis reveal three distinct types of prosocial decisions

Rhoads

Marsh

2021

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tasks that measure correlates of prosocial decision-making share one common feature: agents can make choices that increase the welfare of a beneficiary. However, prosocial decisions vary widely as a function of other task features. The diverse ways that prosociality is defined and the heterogeneity of prosocial decisions have created challenges for interpreting findings across studies and identifying their neural correlates. To overcome these challenges, we aimed to organize the prosocial decision-making task-space of neuroimaging studies. We conducted a systematic search for studies in which participants made decisions to increase the welfare of others during fMRI. We identified shared and distinct features of these tasks and employed an unsupervised graph-based approach to assess how various forms of prosocial decision-making are related in terms of their low-level components (e.g., task features like potential cost to the agent or potential for reciprocity). Analyses uncovered three clusters of prosocial decisions, which we labeled cooperation, equity, and altruism. This feature-based representation of the task structure was supported by results of a neuroimaging meta-analysis that each type of prosocial decisions recruited diverging neural systems. Results clarify some of the existing heterogeneity in how prosociality is conceptualized and generate insight for future research and task paradigm development.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 96%

A feature-based network analysis and fMRI meta-analysis reveal three distinct types of prosocial decisions

Rhoads

Marsh

2021

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps part of what made the creativity crisis myth so influential, is the historical (over)reliance on the TTCT as one "gold standard" of creativity assessment and erroneous interpretation of its scores as a pure measure of creativity. While the TTCT surely captures some important aspects of the potential for creativity, it is now well understood that no single measure of creative potential or performance can capture the whole creativity phenomenon (e.g., Baer, 2011;Barbot et al, 2019;Kenett et al, 2020;Said-Metwaly, Kyndt, & Van den Noortgate, 2017a). This has been highlighted since the inception of the systematic study of creativity (e.g., Guilford, 1966).…”

Section: Is the Creativity Crisis A Measurement Crisis?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There Really a Creativity Crisis? A Critical Review and Meta‐analytic Re‐Appraisal

Barbot

Said-Metwaly

2020

Journal of Creative Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of a "creativity crisis" is widely accepted in the creativity and education literature. Its popular interpretation as a decline in creativity across generations originates from Kim's (2011) influential analysis of the re-norming data in the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). The present work offers a critical review and reappraises the findings of Kim ( 2011), while incorporating new data from the latest norming edition of the TTCT. We posit that Kim's (2011) claim of creativity decline was grounded on problematic empirical decisions, statistical approaches, data representation, and interpretation of findings. Based on a sample of over 330,000 participants across TTCT norming editions, we further present a set of cross-temporal meta-analyses to revisit generational trends. These analyses reveal no evidence for the notion of a generational decline of creativity, and even less so, for a "creativity crisis." We conclude by discussing more broadly how beyond the lack of empirical evidence, the notion of creativity crisis represents a counter-productive societal and scientific myth. A few directions for the improvement of research and assessment practices in creativity are also discussed.

show abstract

“…The creative musician generates a unique combination of sounds, the creative chef discovers an original combination of flavors, and so on. But novelty isn’t everything: according to many, the invention must exhibit some value to somebody (Dietrich, 2019; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Kenett et al, 2020). After all, any hack can bang piano keys randomly or throw together random ingredients from their kitchen.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What are the benefits of mind wandering to creativity?

Murray

Liang

Brosowsky

et al. 2021

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A primary aim of mind-wandering research has been to understand its influence on task performance. While this research has typically highlighted the costs of mind wandering, a handful of studies have suggested that mind wandering may be beneficial in certain situations.Perhaps the most-touted benefit is that mind wandering during a creative-incubation interval facilitates creative thinking. This finding has played a critical role in the development of accounts of the adaptive value of mind wandering and its functional role, as well as potential mechanisms of mind wandering. Thus, a demonstration of the replicability of this important finding is warranted. Here, we attempted to conceptually replicate results of a highly cited laboratory-based experiment supporting this finding. However, across two studies (N = 443), we found no evidence for the claim that mind wandering during a creative-incubation interval facilitates a form of creativity associated with divergent thinking. We suggest that our failed conceptual replication stems from an inadequate characterization of mind wandering (taskunrelated thought), and that there are good reasons to think that task-unrelated thought is unlikely to be causally related to creativity. Our results cast doubt on the claim that taskunrelated thought during an incubation interval enhances divergent creativity while also offering some prescriptions for how future research might further elucidate the cognitive benefits of mind wandering.

show abstract

Developing a neurally informed ontology of creativity measurement

Cited by 27 publications

References 37 publications

A feature-based network analysis and fMRI meta-analysis reveal three distinct types of prosocial decisions

A feature-based network analysis and fMRI meta-analysis reveal three distinct types of prosocial decisions

Is There Really a Creativity Crisis? A Critical Review and Meta‐analytic Re‐Appraisal

What are the benefits of mind wandering to creativity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About