Dynamic switching between brain networks predicts creative ability

Creativity is hypothesized to arise from a mental state which balances spontaneous thought and cognitive control, corresponding to functional connectivity between the brain's Default Mode (DMN) and Executive Control (ECN) Networks. Here, we conduct a large-scale, multi-center examination of this hypothesis. Employing a meta-analytic network neuroscience approach, we analyze resting-state fMRI and creative task performance across 10 independent samples from Austria, Canada, China, Japan, and the United States (N = 2433)-constituting the largest and most ethnically diverse creativity neuroscience study to date. Using time-resolved network analysis, we investigate the relationship between creativity (i.e., divergent thinking ability) and dynamic switching between DMN and ECN. We find that creativity, but not general intelligence, can be reliably predicted by the number of DMN-ECN switches. Importantly, we identify an inverted-U relationship between creativity and the degree of balance between DMN-ECN switching, suggesting that optimal creative performance requires balanced brain network dynamics. Furthermore, an independent task-fMRI validation study (N = 31) demonstrates higher DMN-ECN switching during creative idea generation (compared to a control condition) and replicates the inverted-U relationship. Therefore, we provide robust evidence across multi-center datasets that creativity is tied to the capacity to dynamically switch between brain networks supporting spontaneous and controlled cognition.

Creativity From Constraint Exploration and Exploitation

Using the frameworks of creativity as problem solving and Integrated Constraints in Creativity (IConIC), this article develops the proposal that creativity is best understood in terms of a cycle of constraint exploration and exploitation. This general thesis, which applies to varied domains and levels of creativity, is supported by three specific proposals about the role of constraints in creativity, each of which is developed and illustrated with examples. First, constraints provide the criteria for the evaluation of creative outcomes, which can vary as a function of the emphasis on novel usefulness or useful novelty. Second, constraints are critical in each step of the creative process: problem finding, problem construction, and problem solving. Third, constraints play a key role in both open-ended and closed-ended creative problems. These arguments are supported by specific predictions, concerning: (a) task differences in whether novelty or usefulness are emphasized more; (b) individual differences in the processing of constraints (some may favor flexible constraint exploration, while others may favor persistent constraint exploitation), which I hypothesize also correlate with (c) engagement in different types of creative problem-solving (more open-ended, of the sort encountered in art, vs. more closed-ended, of the sort encountered in science, business, and engineering).

Controlling stimulus ambiguity reduces spurious creative ideation variance in a cyclic adaptation of the alternative uses task

In the alternative uses task (AUT), a well-established creativity assessment, participants propose alternative uses for common items (e.g., a brick) within a 2-3 min timeframe. While idea evaluation is likely involved, the emphasis is strongly on idea generation. Here, we test the value of presenting a word overlapping an image compared to a word only prompt, and we introduce a cyclic adaptation of the AUT explicitly calling on participants to choose their best idea. In Experiment 1, as compared to word only, word + image prompts increased idea fluency but reduced idea originality and variability within a group of native Polish speakers. Thus, word + image prompts improve AUT baselining. In Experiment 2, different participants produced as many ideas as possible within two minutes (List) or their single best idea at the end of each of three 30 s ideation cycles (Cycle). Although originality did not differ between List and Cycle overall, the first three ideas in List were rated as less creative than the ideas in Cycle. Overall, we conclude that using disambiguating images reduces spurious interindividual variability in the AUT while introducing idea evaluation in the task allows us to assess creativity beyond idea generation.

Does Thinking in Opposites in Order to Think Differently Improve Creativity?

In this paper, we focus on the link between thinking in opposites and creativity. Thinking in opposites requires an intuitive, productive strategy, which may enhance creativity. Given the importance of creativity for the well-being of individuals and society, finding new ways to enhance it represents a valuable goal in both professional and personal contexts. We discuss the body of evidence that exists concerning the importance of the first representation of the structure of a problem to be solved, which determines the baseline representation and sets limits on the area within which a problem solver will explore. We then review a variety of interventions described in the literature on creativity and insight problem solving that were designed to overcome fixedness and encourage people to move away from stereotypical solutions. Special attention is paid to the research carried out in the context of problem solving, which provides evidence that prompting people to "think in opposites" is beneficial. We suggest that an extended investigation of the effects of this strategy in various types of tasks related to creativity is an interesting line of research to follow. We discuss the rationale supporting this claim and identify specific questions, both theoretical and methodological, for future research to address.

Where is the When of Creativity?: Specifying the Temporal Dimension of the Four Cs of Creativity

Creativity researchers typically focus on the who, what, why, where, and how of creativity. A noticeable omission is when. The when is not completely ignored in the field; it surfaces in developmental and evolutionary perspectives, the study of eminent creators, and other avenues of scholarship. In this paper, we assert that for the concept of when to be fully addressed researchers need to more actively consider the past, present, and future and how they interact. More specifically, we propose an expanded way of thinking about the when of creativity by introducing a temporal dimension to the definition of creativity. Our definition offers a broader lens for researchers to consider the temporal dimensions of originality, meaningfulness, and impact of creativity. After introducing our definition and describing its unique features, we discuss how researchers can use our definition to trace creative phenomena across a full temporal trajectory and thereby provide more nuanced and dynamic representation of how the features of creativity change across time and contexts. Finally, we apply this temporal definition to the Four Cs Model of Creativity to illustrate how considering the when can help resolve lingering questions about this perspective.