Creativity across the lifespan: changes with age and with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is well known that older age is associated with losses in cognitive functioning. Less is known about the extent to which creativity is changing with age or dementia. Aim of the current study was to gain more insights into psychometric aspects of creativity in younger and older people as well as people with dementia. METHOD: Our sample comprised three groups, (1) participants between age 18-30 years (n = 24), (2) participants 65 + years without cognitive impairment (n = 24), and (3) participants 65 + years with cognitive impairment / dementia (n = 23). Cognitive abilities were assessed via the Standard Progressive Matrices Test (SPM), Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCa), and Trail Making Test (TMT). Creativity was assessed via the Creative Reasoning Task (CRT), Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP), and Alternate Uses Task (AUT). RESULTS: Compared to younger people, older people scored significantly lower in only two out of eleven creativity sub-scores (one in the CRT and one in the TCT-DP). Performance in the SPM was significantly associated with these two sub-scores and age. Cognitively impaired older people had significantly lower scores in the creativity task AUT compared to cognitively healthy older people and younger people. The associations between MoCa and AUT scores were also significant. CONCLUSION: Creativity appears relatively stable in older age, with exception of those creativity skills that are affected by abstract reasoning (SPM), which appear susceptible to aging. As our findings suggest, cognitive impairment in older age might impair only some aspects of creativity with other creativity aspects being comparable to cognitively healthy people. The age-related and the cognitive status-related effects seem to be independent. The preserved creative abilities can be used in dementia care programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".