Network oscillations imply the highest cognitive workload and lowest cognitive control during idea generation in open-ended creation tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design is a ubiquitous, complex, and open-ended creation behaviour that triggers creativity. The brain dynamics underlying design is unclear, since a design process consists of many basic cognitive behaviours, such as problem understanding, idea generation, idea analysis, idea evaluation, and idea evolution. In this present study, we simulated the design process in a loosely controlled setting, aiming to quantify the design-related cognitive workload and control, identify EEG-defined large-scale brain networks, and uncover their temporal dynamics. The effectiveness of this loosely controlled setting was tested through comparing the results with validated findings available in the literature. Task-related power (TRP) analysis of delta, theta, alpha and beta frequency bands revealed that idea generation was associated with the highest cognitive workload and lowest cognitive control, compared to other design activities in the experiment, including problem understanding, idea evaluation, and self-rating. EEG microstate analysis supported this finding as microstate class C, being negatively associated with the cognitive control network, was the most prevalent in idea generation. Furthermore, EEG microstate sequence analysis demonstrated that idea generation was consistently associated with the shortest temporal correlation times concerning finite entropy rate, autoinformation function, and Hurst exponent. This finding suggests that during idea generation the interplay of functional brain networks is less restricted and the brain has more degrees of freedom in choosing the next network configuration than during other design activities. Taken together, the TRP and EEG microstate results lead to the conclusion that idea generation is associated with the highest cognitive workload and lowest cognitive control during open-ended creation task.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".