Dynamic cycles between brain states during creative storytelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many theories suggest that creative thinking involves a dynamic transition between different mental states, yet empirical evidence supporting this notion remains scarce. The dual process model proposes that spontaneous thinking and deliberate thinking drive the dwell in and the transitions between different mental states during creative thinking, but there is a debate over whether the two types of thinking operate in parallel or in sequence. To address these gaps, we conducted a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study in 41 college students during a creative storytelling task. We then compared the dynamic brain states in creative versus uncreative storytelling to identify key brain states associated with creative thinking. And we further performed correlation analysis between these key brain states with performance of various creative tasks, trying to link the key brain states with different cognitive processes. The results showed that two key brain states are associated with creative thinking, with one involving whole-brain synchronization and the other involving the synchronization of four networks, including the default mode network and the control network. The transition patterns between the key brain states provide tentative evidence for dynamic circulation between different mental states during creative storytelling. Using a deep learning approach, we demonstrate an alternating interaction between spontaneous and deliberate thinking, driving dwelling in and the transitions between different brain states. These findings deepen our understanding of the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying creative thinking.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".