Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-plnhv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-08-30T19:33:00.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IN IDEA GENERATION: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS

Part of: Human Behaviour and Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

S. Colombo ,
A. Mazza ,
F. Montagna ,
R. Ricci ,
O. Dal Monte  and
M. Cantamessa
S. Colombo*
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Torino, Italy
A. Mazza
Affiliation:
Università di Torino, Italy
F. Montagna
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Torino, Italy
R. Ricci
Affiliation:
Università di Torino, Italy
O. Dal Monte
Affiliation:
Università di Torino, Italy
M. Cantamessa
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Torino, Italy
*
*samuele.colombo@polito.it

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The paper describes the rigorous implementation of a validated methodological experimental protocol to divergent and convergent thinking tasks occurring in Design by neurophysiological means (EEG and eye-tracking). EEG evidence confirms the findings coherently to the literature. Interesting is the confirmation of such results through eye-tracking ones, and further evidence emerged. In particular, neurophysiological results in idea generation differ between designers and engineers. This study was supported by a multidisciplinary team, both for the neuropsychological and data analysis aspects.

Keywords

idea generationelectroencephalographyeye-trackingdesign creativitydesign process

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1415 - 1424
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Alexiou, K., Zamenopoulos, T. and Gilbert, S. (2010), “Imaging the designing brain: A neurocognitive exploration of design thinking”, Design Computing and Cognition DCC’10 - Springer, pp. 487–503.Google Scholar
Arden, R. et al. (2010), “Neuroimaging creativity: A psychometric view”, Behavioural Brain Research, Vol. 214 No. 2, pp. 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2010.05.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benedek, M. et al. (2014), “Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: The common and differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity”, Intelligence, Vol. 46, pp. 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benedek, M. et al. (2017), “Eye Behavior Associated with Internally versus Externally Directed Cognition”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01092CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benedek, M. (2018), “Internally directed attention in creative cognition”, In: Jung, R.E. and Vartanian, O. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the neuroscience of creativity, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316556238.011Google Scholar
Colombo, S. et al. (n.d.), A Review of Methodologies for Neurophysiological Analysis of Divergent and Convergent Thinking Tasks in Design: How to set up a good experiment, To be defined.Google Scholar
Cropley, A. (2006), “In Praise of Convergent Thinking”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (2001), “Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science”, Design Issues, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, A. and Kanso, R. (2010), “A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight”, Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019749CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietrich, A. and Haider, H. (2017), “A Neurocognitive Framework for Human Creative Thought”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02078CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doherty-Sneddon, G. and Phelps, F.G. (2005), “Gaze aversion: A response to cognitive or social difficulty?”, Memory & Cognition, Vol. 33, pp. 727–733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dym, C.L. et al. (2005), “Engineering Design Thinking”, Teaching, and Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.xGoogle Scholar
Eris, Ö. (2003), “Asking generative design questions: a fundamental cognitive mechanism in design thinking”, 14th international conference on engineering design.Google Scholar
Fink, A. and Benedek, M. (2012), “EEG alpha power and creative ideation”, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, Vol. 44, pp. 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fink, A. and Benedek, M. (2013), “The creative brain: brain correlates underlying the generation of original ideas”, In: Vartanian, O., Bristol, A.S. and Kaufman, J.S. (Eds.), Neuroscience of Creativity, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. (2011), “Future Directions for Design Creativity Research”, Design Creativity, Vol. 2010, pp. 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-224-7_3Google Scholar
Guilford, J.P. (1956), “The Structure of Intellect”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 267–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilford, J.P. (1967), “Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, D. and Martindale, C. (1974), “Induced Lateral Eye-Movements and Creative and Intellectual Performance”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 153–154. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1974.39.1.153CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jauk, E., Benedek, M. and Neubauer, A.C. (2012), “Tackling creativity at its roots: Evidence for different patterns of EEG alpha activity related to convergent and divergent modes of task processing”, International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.02.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klausen, S.H. (2010), “The Notion of Creativity Revisited: A Philosophical Perspective on Creativity Research”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.523390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimesch, W., Sauseng, P. and Hanslmayr, S. (2007), “EEG alpha oscillations: The inhibition–timing hypothesis”, Brain Research Reviews, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2006.06.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laspia, A., Montagna, F. and Törlind, P. (2019), “Contrasting Divergent and Convergent Thinking by Electroencephalography and Eye Tracking”, ICoRD 2019, Vol. 1 No. 16, pp. 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5974-3Google Scholar
Maker, C.J. (1993), “Creativity, Intelligence, and Problem Solving: a Definition and Design for Cross-Cultural Research and Measurement Related to Giftedness”, Gifted Education International, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142949300900202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfurtscheller, G. and Lopes da Silva, F.H. (1999), “Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles”, Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol. 110 No. 11, pp. 1842–1857. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1388-2457(99)00141-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raschke, M., Blascheck, T. and Burch, M. (2013), “Visual Analysis of Eye Tracking Data”, Handbook of Human Centric Visualization, pp. 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7485-2_15Google Scholar
Rataj, K., Nazareth, D.S. and van der Velde, F. (2018), “Use a Spoon as a Spade?: Changes in the Upper and Lower Alpha Bands in Evaluating Alternate Object Use”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M.A. and Acar, S. (2012), “Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M.A. and Yoruk, S. (2014), “The Neuroscience of Divergent Thinking”, Activitas Nervosa Superior, Vol. 56 No. 1-2, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03379602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvi, C. and Bowden, E.M. (2016), “Looking for Creativity: Where Do We Look When We Look for New Ideas?”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00161CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawyer, K. (2011), “The Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity: A Critical Review”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.571191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheikh Abdul Aziz, M. et al. (2017), “A Review on the Existing Visual Tools for Design Students”, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 10 No. 48, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i48/120771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1996), The Science of the Artificial, MIT Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Sirois, S. and Brisson, J. (2014), “Pupillometry”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 679–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1323Google ScholarPubMed
Tan, A.G. (2014), “Creativity in cross-disciplinary research”, In: Shiu, E. (Ed.), Creativity Research: An Inter-disciplinary and Multi-disciplinary Research Handbook, Routledge, London, pp. 68–85. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2401.6329Google Scholar
Teplan, M. (2002), “Fundamentals of EEG Measurement”, Measurement Science Review, Vol. 2 No. 2.Google Scholar
Walcher, S., Körner, C. and Benedek, M. (2017), “Data on eye behavior during idea generation and letter-by-letter reading”, Data in Brief, Vol. 15, pp. 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar