MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389903588 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2023.109981

Loosely controlled experimental EEG datasets for higher-order cognitions in design and creativity tasks

2023· article· en· W4389903588 sur OpenAlexafffund
Morteza Zangeneh Soroush, Mengting Zhao, Wenjun Jia, Yong Zeng

Notice bibliographique

RevueData in Brief · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueDesign Education and Practice
Établissements canadiensConcordia University
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Mots-clésCreativityElectroencephalographyTask (project management)Computer scienceCognitionArtificial intelligenceSketchBrain–computer interfaceCognitive psychologyChannel (broadcasting)Psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Understanding neural mechanisms in design and creativity processes remains a challenging endeavor. To address this gap, we present two electroencephalography (EEG) datasets recorded in design and creativity experiments. We have discussed the details, similarities, differences, and corresponding cognitive tasks of the two datasets in the following sections. The design dataset (Dataset A) comprises EEG recordings of 27 participants during loosely controlled design creation experiments. Each experiment included six design problems. In each design problem, participants performed five cognitive tasks, including problem understanding, idea generation, rating idea generation, idea evaluation, and rating idea evaluation. The NASA Task Load Index was used in rating tasks. The creativity dataset (Dataset B) includes EEG signals recorded from 28 participants in creativity experiments which were based on a modified variant of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT-F). Participants were presented with three incomplete sketches and were asked to perform three creativity tasks for each sketch: idea generation, idea evolution, and idea evaluation. In both datasets, we structured the experiments into predefined steps, primarily to ensure participants' comfort and task clarity. This was the only control applied to the experiments. All the tasks were loosely controlled: open-ended (up to 3 min) and self-paced. 64-channel EEG signals were recorded at 500 Hz based on the international 10-10 system by the Brain Vision EEG recording system while the participants were performing their assigned tasks. EEG channels were pre-processed and finally referenced to the Cz channel to remove artifacts. EEGs were pre-processed using popular pipelines widely used in previous studies. Preprocessed EEG signals were finally segmented according to the tasks to facilitate future analyses. The EEG signals are stored in the .mat format. While the present paper mainly addresses pre-processed datasets, it also cites raw EEG recordings in the following sections. We aim to promote research and facilitate the development of experimental protocols and methodologies in design and creativity cognition by sharing these resources. There exist important points regarding the datasets which are worth mentioning. These datasets represent a novel contribution to the field, offering insights into design and creativity neurocognition. To our knowledge, publicly accessible datasets of this nature are scarce, and, to the best of our knowledge, our datasets are the first publicly available ones in design and creativity. Researchers can utilize these datasets directly or draw upon the considerations and technical insights provided to inform their studies. Furthermore, we introduce the concept of loosely controlled cognitive experiments in design and creativity cognition. These experiments strike a balance between flexibility and control, allowing participants to incubate creative ideas over extended response times while maintaining structured experimental sections. Such an approach fosters more natural data recording procedures and holds the potential to enhance the accuracy and reliability of future studies. The loosely controlled approach can be employed in future cognitive studies. This paper also conducts a comparative analysis of the two datasets, offering a holistic view of design and creativity tasks. By exploring various aspects of these cognitive processes, we provide an understanding for future researchers.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,473
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,414

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,099
Tête enseignante GPT0,360
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueData in BriefMême sujetDesign Education and PracticeTravaux en français237 207