MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexafffund
Morteza Zangeneh Soroush, Mengting Zhao, Wenjun Jia, Yong Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCreativityElectroencephalographyTask (project management)Computer scienceCognitionArtificial intelligenceSketchBrain–computer interfaceCognitive psychologyChannel (broadcasting)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207