Divergent Perception: Framing Creative Cognition Through the Lens of Sensory Flexibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Creativity is a cornerstone of human evolution and is typically defined as the multifaceted ability to produce novel and useful artifacts. Although much research has focused on divergent thinking, growing evidence underscores the importance of perceptual processing in fostering creativity, particularly through perceptual flexibility. The present work aims to offer a framework that relates creativity to perception, showing how sensory affordances, especially in ambiguous stimuli, can contribute to the generation of novel ideas. In doing so, we contextualize the phenomenon of pareidolia, which involves seeing familiar patterns in noisy or ambiguous stimuli, as a key perceptual mechanism of idea generation—one of the central stages of the creative process. We introduce “divergent perception” to describe the process by which individuals actively engage with the perceptual affordances provided by ambiguous sensory information, and illustrate how this concept could account for the heightened creativity observed in psychedelic and psychotic states. Moreover, we explore how divergent perception relates to cognitive mechanisms crucial in creative thinking, particularly focusing on the role of attention. Finally, we discuss future paths for the exploration of divergent perception, including targeted manipulation of stimulus characteristics and the investigation of the intricate interplay between bottom‐up and top‐down cognitive processes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".