Open/expand sidebar to display additional information
References
Dietrich, A.. (2007). Who’s afraid of a cognitive neuroscience of creativity?. Methods
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.009
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“This article has two goals. first, the ideas outlined here can be seen as a sustained and disciplined demolition project aimed at sanitizing our bad habits of thinking about creativity. apart from the enormous amount of fluff out there, the study of creativity is, quite unfortunately, still dominated by a number of rather dated ideas that are either so simplistic that nothing good can possibly come out of them or, given what we know about the brain, factually mistaken. as cognitive neuroscience is making more serious contact with the knowledge base of creativity, we must, from the outset, clear the ground of these pernicious fossil traces from a bygone era. the best neuroimaging techniques help little if we don’t know what to look for. second, as an antidote to these theoretical duds, the article offers fresh ideas on possible mechanisms of creativity. given that they are grounded in current understanding of cognitive and neural processes, it is hoped that these ideas represent steps broadly pointing in the right direction. in the end, the fundamental question we must ask ourselves is what, exactly, are the mental processes-or their critical elements-that yield creative thoughts. © 2007 elsevier inc. all rights reserved.”
Sawyer, K.. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review. Creativity Research Journal
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2011.571191
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“Cognitive neuroscience studies of creativity have appeared with increasing frequently in recent years. yet to date, no comprehensive and critical review of these studies has yet been published. the first part of this article presents a quick overview of the 3 primary methodologies used by cognitive neuroscientists: electroencephalography (eeg), posi- tron emission tomography (pet), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fmri). the second part provides a comprehensive review of cognitive neuroscience studies of creativity-related cognitive processes. the third part critically examines these studies; the goal is to be extremely clear about exactly what interpretations can appropriately be made of these studies. the conclusion provides recommendations for future research collaborations between creativity researchers and cognitive neuroscientists. cognitive”
Onarheim, B., & Friis-Olivarius, M.. (2013). Applying the neuroscience of creativity to creativity training. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Plain numerical DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00656
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“This article investigates how neuroscience in general, and neuroscience of creativity in particular, can be used in teaching ‘applied creativity’ and the usefulness of this approach to creativity training. the article is based on empirical data and our experiences from the applied neurocreativity (anc) program, taught at business schools in denmark and canada. in line with previous studies of successful creativity training programs the anc participants are first introduced to cognitive concepts of creativity, before applying these concepts to a relevant real world creative problem. the novelty in the anc program is that the conceptualization of creativity is built on neuroscience, and a crucial aspect of the course is giving the students a thorough understanding of the neuroscience of creativity. previous studies have reported that the conceptualization of creativity used in such training is of major importance for the success of the training, and we believe that the neuroscience of creativity offers a novel conceptualization for creativity training. here we present pre/post-training tests showing that anc students gained more fluency in divergent thinking (a traditional measure of trait creativity) than those in highly similar courses without the neuroscience component, suggesting that principles from neuroscience can contribute effectively to creativity training and produce measurable results on creativity tests. the evidence presented indicates that the inclusion of neuroscience principles in a creativity course can in 8 weeks increase divergent thinking skills with an individual relative average of 28.5%.”
Dietrich, A.. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
Plain numerical DOI: 10.3758/BF03196731
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“This article outlines a framework of creativity based on functional neuroanatomy. recent advances in the field of cognitive neuroscience have identified distinct brain circuits that are involved in specific higher brain functions. to date, these findings have not been applied to research on creativity. it is proposed that there are four basic types of creative insights, each mediated by a distinctive neural circuit. by definition, creative insights occur in consciousness. given the view that the working memory buffer of the prefrontal cortex holds the content of consciousness, each of the four distinctive neural loops terminates there. when creativity is the result of deliberate control, as opposed to spontaneous generation, the prefrontal cortex also instigates the creative process. both processing modes, deliberate and spontaneous, can guide neural computation in structures that contribute emotional content and in structures that provide cognitive analysis, yielding the four basic types of creativity. supportive evidence from psychological, cognitive, and neuroscientific studies is presented and integrated in this article. the new theoretical framework systematizes the interaction between knowledge and creative thinking, and how the nature of this relationship changes as a function of domain and age. implications for the arts and sciences are briefly discussed.”
Srinivasan, N.. (2007). Cognitive neuroscience of creativity: EEG based approaches. Methods
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.008
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“Cognitive neuroscience of creativity has been extensively studied using non-invasive electrical recordings from the scalp called electroencephalograms (eegs) and event related potentials (erps). the paper discusses major aspects of performing research using eeg/erp based experiments including the recording of the signals, removing noise, estimating erp signals, and signal analysis for better understanding of the neural correlates of processes involved in creativity. important factors to be kept in mind to record clean eeg signal in creativity research are discussed. the recorded eeg signal can be corrupted by various sources of noise and methodologies to handle the presence of unwanted artifacts and filtering noise are presented followed by methods to estimate erps from the eeg signals from multiple trials. the eeg and erp signals are further analyzed using various techniques including spectral analysis, coherence analysis, and non-linear signal analysis. these analysis techniques provide a way to understand the spatial activations and temporal development of large scale electrical activity in the brain during creative tasks. the use of this methodology will further enhance our understanding the processes neural and cognitive processes involved in creativity. © 2006 elsevier inc. all rights reserved.”
Abraham, A.. (2013). The promises and perils of the neuroscience of creativity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Plain numerical DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00246
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“Our ability to think creatively is one of the factors that generates excitement in our lives as it introduces novelty and opens up new possibilities to our awareness which in turn lead to developments in a variety of fields from science and technology to art and culture. while research on the influence of biologically-based variables on creativity has a long history, the advent of modern techniques for investigating brain structure and function in the past two decades have resulted in an exponential increase in the number of neuroscientific studies that have explored creativity. the field of creative neurocognition is a rapidly growing area of research that can appear chaotic and inaccessible because of the heterogeneity associated with the creativity construct and the many approaches through which it can be examined. there are also significant methodological and conceptual problems that are specific to the neuroscientific study of creativity that pose considerable limitations on our capacity to make true advances in understanding the brain basis of creativity. this article explores three key issues that need to be addressed so that barriers in the way of relevant progress being made within the field can be avoided. are creativity neuroimaging paradigms optimal enough?what makes creative cognition different from normative cognition?do we need to distinguish between types of creativity?”
Fink, A., Weber, B., Koschutnig, K., Benedek, M., Reishofer, G., Ebner, F., … Weiss, E. M.. (2014). Creativity and schizotypy from the neuroscience perspective. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience
Plain numerical DOI: 10.3758/s13415-013-0210-6
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“Behavioral research has revealed that some cognitive features may be similar between creative and psychotic/schizophrenic-like thoughts. in this study, we addressed the potential link between creativity and schizotypy at the level of the brain by investigating functional patterns of brain activity (using functional magnetic resonance imaging) during creative cognition in preselected groups with low versus high psychometrically determined schizotypy. our findings revealed an association between the originality component of creativity and reduced deactivation of right parietal brain regions and the precuneus during creative cognition, congruent with the idea that more-creative people may include many more events/stimuli in their mental processes than do less-creative people. similarly, the high-schizotypy group showed weaker deactivation of the right precuneus during creative cognition. the fact that originality and schizotypy show similar functional brain activity patterns during creative ideation (i.e., reduced deactivation of the right precuneus) strongly supports the contention that similar mental processes may be implicated in creativity and in psychosis proneness.”
Fink, A., Benedek, M., Grabner, R. H., Staudt, B., & Neubauer, A. C.. (2007). Creativity meets neuroscience: Experimental tasks for the neuroscientific study of creative thinking. Methods
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.001
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“The psychometric assessment of different facets of creative abilities as well as the availability of experimental tasks for the neuroscientific study of creative thinking has replaced the view of creativity as an unsearchable trait. in this article we provide a brief overview of contemporary methodologies used for the operationalization of creative thinking in a neuroscientific context. empirical studies are reported which measured brain activity (by means of eeg, fmri, nirs or pet) during the performance of different experimental tasks. these tasks, along with creative idea generation tasks used in our laboratory, constitute useful tools in uncovering possible brain correlates of creative thinking. nevertheless, much more work is needed in order to establish reliable and valid measures of creative thinking, in particular measures of novelty or originality of creative insights. © 2006 elsevier inc. all rights reserved.”
Abraham, A., & Windmann, S.. (2007). Creative cognition: The diverse operations and the prospect of applying a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Methods
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.007
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“Creativity is defined quite simply as ‘the ability to create’ in most lexicons, but, in reality, this is a complex and heterogeneous construct about which there is much to be discovered. the cognitive approach to investigating creativity recognizes and seeks to understand this complexity by investigating the component processes involved in creative thinking. the cognitive neuroscience approach, which has only limitedly been applied in the study of creativity, should ideally build on these ideas in uncovering the neural substrates of these processes. following an introduction into the early experimental ideas and the cognitive approach to creativity, we discuss the theoretical background and behavioral methods for testing various processes of creative cognition, including conceptual expansion, the constraining influence of examples, creative imagery and insight. the complex relations between the underlying component processes of originality and relevance across these tasks are presented thereafter. we then outline how some of these conceptual distinctions can be evaluated by neuroscientific evidence and elaborate on the neuropsychological approach in the study of creativity. given the current state of affairs, our recommendation is that despite methodological difficulties that are associated with investigating creativity, adopting the cognitive neuroscience perspective is a highly promising framework for validating and expanding on the critical issues that have been raised in this paper. © 2006 elsevier inc. all rights reserved.”
Mcpherson, M., & Limb, C. J.. (2013). Difficulties in the neuroscience of creativity: Jazz improvisation and the scientific method. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/nyas.12174
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“Creativity is a fundamental and remarkable human capacity, yet the scientific study of creativity has been limited by the difficulty of reconciling the scientific method and creative processes. we outline several hurdles and considerations that should be addressed when studying the cognitive neuroscience of creativity and suggest that jazz improvisation may be one of the most useful experimental models for the study of spontaneous creativity. more broadly, we argue that studying creativity in a way that is both scientifically and ecologically valid requires collaboration between neuroscientists and artists. © 2013 new york academy of sciences.”
PATTERSON, S.. (2006). The Creating Brain: The Neuroscience of Genius. American Journal of Psychiatry
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.163.1.164
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“Reviews the book, the creating brain: the neuroscience of genius by nancy c. andreasen (see record 2006-01595-000). how does the brain accomplish creativity? how can we understand the creative process, if there is only one, and how might we improve our ability to be creative? is it possible to look into the brain and find signatures of creative thinking in the same way that modern cognitive neuroscientists have uncovered some of the neural underpinnings of memory, emotion, and attention? or is creativity outside the realm of scientific understanding, inspired by complex, deeply personal, or, perhaps, divine forces that cannot be cast into universal laws of creativity? these are some of the questions addressed in nancy andreasen’s provocative new book, the creating brain. this book explores the nature of creativity, character traits of highly creative people, and considers how the brain achieves creative thinking. the creating brain often reads like a memoir, as andreasen works hard to remove the screen of academic jargon, instruct the reader in an informal and engaging manner, and interject her own personal experiences and reflections into the discussion. there is more about the ‘mind’ than the ‘brain’ in the creating brain. personality traits of creative people, cognitive styles, and cognitive processes in creativity may be reflections of the brain’s workings, but alone they provide little insight into how the brain achieves magnificent feats of creativity. although we recommend the creating brain as an enjoyable read, we cannot recommend it as an up-to-date account of neurobiological approaches to understanding creativity. (psycinfo database record (c) 2010 apa, all rights reserved)”
Yoruk, S., & Runco, M. A.. (2014). The neuroscience of divergent thinking. Activitas Nervosa Superior
Show/hide publication abstract
“Creativity plays a role in innovation, development, and health. recent research has used neuroscientific methods to study originality, novelty, insight, divergent thinking, and other processes related to creative mental activity. findings indicate that both hemispheres are involved in divergent thinking, which is accompanied by both event-related increases and decreases in the neural activation. divergent thinking seems to be associated with high neural activation in the central, temporal, and parietal regions, indications of semantic processing and re-combination of semantically related information. most of the research in this area has been done in the last 10 years, and very likely refining and standardizing dt testing and scoring will lead to additional insights about creativity.”
Silvia, P. J.. (2015). Intelligence and Creativity Are Pretty Similar After All. Educational Psychology Review
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/s10648-015-9299-1
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“This article reviews the history of thought on how intelligence and creativity, two individual differences important to teaching and learning, are connected. for decades, intelligence and creativity have been seen as essentially unrelated abilities. recently, however, new theories, assessment methods, and statistical tools have caused a shift in the field’s consensus. new lines of work on creative thinking strategies, executive cognitive processes and abilities, and cognitive neuroscience have revealed that intelligence and creativity are much more closely linked than the field has thought. the deep connections between these concepts offer opportunities for a more fertile conception of both intelligence and creativity, one that emphasizes similarities between solving problems with right answers and thinking flexibly, critically, and playfully.”
Zaidel, D. W.. (2014). Creativity, brain, and art: biological and neurological considerations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Plain numerical DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00389
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“Creativity is commonly thought of as a positive advance for society that transcends the status quo knowledge. humans display an inordinate capacity for it in a broad range of activities, with art being only one. most work on creativity’s neural substrates measures general creativity, and that is done with laboratory tasks, whereas specific creativity in art is gleaned from acquired brain damage, largely in observing established visual artists, and some in visual de novo artists (became artists after the damage). the verb ‘to create’ has been erroneously equated with creativity; creativity, in the classic sense, does not appear to be enhanced following brain damage, regardless of etiology. the turning to communication through art in lieu of language deficits reflects a biological survival strategy. creativity in art, and in other domains, is most likely dependent on intact and healthy knowledge and semantic conceptual systems, which are represented in several pathways in the cortex. it is adversely affected when these systems are dysfunctional, for congenital reasons (savant autism) or because of acquired brain damage (stroke, dementia, parkinson’s), whereas inherent artistic talent and skill appear less affected. clues to the neural substrates of general creativity and specific art creativity can be gleaned from considering that art is produced spontaneously mainly by humans, that there are unique neuroanatomical and neurofunctional organizations in the human brain, and that there are biological antecedents of innovation in animals.”
Kaufman, J. C.. (2014). Creativity and mental illness. Creativity and Mental Illness
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139128902
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“© cambridge university press 2014. are creative people more likely to be mentally ill? this basic question has been debated for thousands of years, with the ‘mad genius’ concept advanced by such luminaries as aristotle. there are many studies that argue the answer is ‘yes’, and several prominent scholars who argue strongly for a connection. there are also those who argue equally strongly that the core studies and scholarship underlying the mad genius myth are fundamentally flawed. this book re-examines the common view that a high level of individual creativity often correlates with a heightened risk of mental illness. it reverses conventional wisdom that links creativity with mental illness, arguing that the two traits are not associated. with contributions from some of the most exciting voices in the fields of psychology, neuroscience, physics, psychiatry, and management, this is a dynamic and cutting-edge volume that will inspire new ideas and studies on this fascinating topic.”
Carson, S. H.. (2011). Creativity and psychopathology: A shared vulnerability model. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/070674371105600304
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
“Creativity is considered a positive personal trait. however, highly creative people have demonstrated elevated risk for certain forms of psychopathology, including mood disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and alcoholism. a model of shared vulnerability explains the relation between creativity and psychopathology. this model, supported by recent findings from neuroscience and molecular genetics, suggests that the biological determinants conferring risk for psychopathology interact with protective cognitive factors to enhance creative ideation. elements of shared vulnerability include cognitive disinhibition (which allows more stimuli into conscious awareness), an attentional style driven by novelty salience, and neural hyperconnectivity that may increase associations among disparate stimuli. these vulnerabilities interact with superior meta-cognitive protective factors, such as high iq, increased working memory capacity, and enhanced cognitive flexibility, to enlarge the range and depth of stimuli available in conscious awareness to be manipulated and combined to form novel and original ideas.”
