Does Visual Fixation Affect Idea Fixation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Divergent thinking, an aspect of creativity, is often studied by measuring performance on the Alternative Uses Test (AUT). There is, however, a gap in creativity research concerning how visual stimuli on the AUT are perceived. Memory and attention researchers have used eye-tracking studies to reveal insights into how people think and how they perceive visual stimuli. Thus, the current work uses eye tracking to study how eye movements are related to creativity. Participants orally listed alternative uses for twelve objects, each visually presented for 2 min in four different views. Using eye tracking, we specifically explored where and for how long participants fixate their eyes at visual presentations of objects during the AUT. Eye movements before and while naming alternative uses were analyzed. Results revealed that naming new instances and categories of alternative uses correlated more strongly with visual fixation toward multiple views than toward single views of objects. Alternative uses in new, previously unnamed categories were also more likely named following increased visual fixation toward blank space. These and other findings reveal the cognitive-thinking styles and eye-movement behaviors associated with naming new ideas. Such findings may be applied to enhance divergent thinking during design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".