Semantic Distance And the Alternate Uses Task: Recommendations for Reliable Automated Assessment of Originality

Sparking creativity: Encouraging creative idea generation through automatically generated word recommendations

Creative block is a familiar foe to any who attempt to create and is especially related to "writers block". While significant effort has been focused on developing methods to break such blocks, it remains an active challenge. Here, we focus on the role of semantic memory structure in driving creative block, by having people get "stuck" in a certain part of their semantic memory network. We directly examine whether we can "pull out" a participant from where they got "stuck" in their semantic memory, breaking their creative impasse. Our Associative Creativity Sparker (ACS) is a cognitive network science-based online tool that aims to spark creative ideas and break creative impasse: Once a participant runs out of ideas in a creative idea generation task, word recommendations are suggested to prime new ideas. These word recommendations are either towards or away from previous ideas, as well as close or far from the target object, based on a conceptual space extracted from the participants responses using online text analysis. In Study 1, 121 participants use the ACS to generate creative alternative uses for five different objects and completed creativity and Gf tasks. In Study 2, we repeat the design of Study 1, but further examine the impact of writing experience on the ACS, by examining 120 novice and 120 experienced writers. Across both studies, our results indicate that the location of word recommendations affects the fluency and originality of one's ideas, and that novice and experienced writers differently benefit from these word recommendations.

Automatic assessment of divergent thinking in Chinese language with TransDis: A transformer-based language model approach

Language models have been increasingly popular for automatic creativity assessment, generating semantic distances to objectively measure the quality of creative ideas. However, there is currently a lack of an automatic assessment system for evaluating creative ideas in the Chinese language. To address this gap, we developed TransDis, a scoring system using transformer-based language models, capable of providing valid originality (novelty) and flexibility (variety) scores for Alternative Uses Task (AUT) responses in Chinese. Study 1 demonstrated that the latent model-rated originality factor, comprised of three transformer-based models, strongly predicted human originality ratings, and the model-rated flexibility strongly correlated with human flexibility ratings as well. Criterion validity analyses indicated that model-rated originality and flexibility positively correlated to other creativity measures, demonstrating similar validity to human ratings. Study 2 and 3 showed that TransDis effectively distinguished participants instructed to provide creative vs. common uses (Study 2) and participants instructed to generate ideas in a flexible vs. persistent way (Study 3). Our findings suggest that TransDis can be a reliable and low-cost tool for measuring idea originality and flexibility in Chinese language, potentially paving the way for automatic creativity assessment in other languages. We offer an open platform to compute originality and flexibility for AUT responses in Chinese and over 50 other languages ( https://osf.io/59jv2/ ).

Semantic associative abilities and executive control functions predict novelty and appropriateness of idea generation

Novelty and appropriateness are two fundamental components of creativity. However, the way in which novelty and appropriateness are separated at behavioral and neural levels remains poorly understood. In the present study, we aim to distinguish behavioral and neural bases of novelty and appropriateness of creative idea generation. In alignment with two established theories of creative thinking, which respectively, emphasize semantic association and executive control, behavioral results indicate that novelty relies more on associative abilities, while appropriateness relies more on executive functions. Next, employing a connectome predictive modeling (CPM) approach in resting-state fMRI data, we define two functional network-based models-dominated by interactions within the default network and by interactions within the limbic network-that respectively, predict novelty and appropriateness (i.e., cross-brain prediction). Furthermore, the generalizability and specificity of the two functional connectivity patterns are verified in additional resting-state fMRI and task fMRI. Finally, the two functional connectivity patterns, respectively mediate the relationship between semantic association/executive control and novelty/appropriateness. These findings provide global and predictive distinctions between novelty and appropriateness in creative idea generation.

The current state of artificial intelligence generative language models is more creative than humans on divergent thinking tasks

The emergence of publicly accessible artificial intelligence (AI) large language models such as ChatGPT has given rise to global conversations on the implications of AI capabilities. Emergent research on AI has challenged the assumption that creative potential is a uniquely human trait thus, there seems to be a disconnect between human perception versus what AI is objectively capable of creating. Here, we aimed to assess the creative potential of humans in comparison to AI. In the present study, human participants (N = 151) and GPT-4 provided responses for the Alternative Uses Task, Consequences Task, and Divergent Associations Task. We found that AI was robustly more creative along each divergent thinking measurement in comparison to the human counterparts. Specifically, when controlling for fluency of responses, AI was more original and elaborate. The present findings suggest that the current state of AI language models demonstrate higher creative potential than human respondents.

The Manic Idea Creator? A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Bipolar Disorder and Creative Cognitive Potential

Even though a relationship between psychopathology and creativity has been postulated since the time of ancient Greece, systematic meta-analyses on this topic are still scarce. Thus, the meta-analysis described here can be considered the first to date that specifically focuses on the relationship between creative potential, as measured by divergent thinking, and bipolar disorder, as opposed to psychopathology in general. An extensive literature search of 4670 screened hits identified 13 suitable studies, including a total of 42 effect sizes and 1857 participants. The random-effects model showed an overall significant, positive, yet diminutively small effect (d = 0.11, 95% CI: [0.002, 0.209], p = 0.045) between divergent thinking and bipolar disorder. A handful of moderators were examined, which revealed a significant moderating effect for bipolar status, as either euthymic (d = 0.14, p = 0.043), subclinical (d = 0.17, p = 0.001), manic (d = 0.25, p = 0.097), or depressed (d = -0.51, p < 0.001). However, moderator analyses should be treated with caution because of the observed confounding of moderators. Finally, none of the employed methods for publication-bias detection revealed any evidence for publication bias. We discuss further results, especially regarding the differences between subclinical and clinical samples.

Semantic Spaces Are Not Created Equal – How Should We Weigh Them in the Sequel?

Abstract. Semantic distance scoring provides an attractive alternative to other scoring approaches for responses in creative thinking tasks. In addition, evidence in support of semantic distance scoring has increased over the last few years. In one recent approach, it has been proposed to combine multiple semantic spaces to better balance the idiosyncratic influences of each space. Thereby, final semantic distance scores for each response are represented by a composite or factor score. However, semantic spaces are not necessarily equally weighted in mean scores, and the usage of factor scores requires high levels of factor determinacy (i.e., the correlation between estimates and true factor scores). Hence, in this work, we examined the weighting underlying mean scores, mean scores of standardized variables, factor loadings, weights that maximize reliability, and equally effective weights on common verbal creative thinking tasks. Both empirical and simulated factor determinacy, as well as Gilmer-Feldt’s composite reliability, were mostly good to excellent (i.e., > .80) across two task types (Alternate Uses and Creative Word Association), eight samples of data, and all weighting approaches. Person-level validity findings were further highly comparable across weighting approaches. Observed nuances and challenges of different weightings and the question of using composites vs. factor scores are thoroughly provided.