Limits...
Brain activity and connectivity during poetry composition: Toward a multidimensional model of the creative process.

Liu S, Erkkinen MG, Healey ML, Xu Y, Swett KE, Chow HM, Braun AR - Hum Brain Mapp (2015)

Bottom Line: Distinct activation patterns were associated with generation and revision, two major phases of the creative process.Experts showed significantly stronger deactivation of DLPFC/IPS during generation, suggesting that they may more effectively suspend cognitive control.Quality of poetry, assessed by an independent panel, was associated with divergent connectivity patterns in experts and novices, centered upon MPFC (for technical facility) and DLPFC/IPS (for innovation), suggesting a mechanism by which experts produce higher quality poetry.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Language Section, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892.

Show MeSH
Measures of craft, linguistic creativity, and improvement by revision in experts and novices.Two sample t‐tests showed experts scored significantly higher in all measures than novices (N = 27, mean ± standard error, *** indicates P < 0.001, * indicates P < 0.05).
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy-nc-nd
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4581594&req=5

hbm22849-fig-0005: Measures of craft, linguistic creativity, and improvement by revision in experts and novices.Two sample t‐tests showed experts scored significantly higher in all measures than novices (N = 27, mean ± standard error, *** indicates P < 0.001, * indicates P < 0.05).

Mentions: To quantify differences in the quality of poems produced in the scanner, a group of three independent experts blindly rated the poems produced by each subject; measures of quality included ratings for craft (incorporating elements of sound, form, figurative and sensory language), linguistic creativity (LC—the innovative use of craft elements) and improvement following revision. Measures of inter‐rater reliability among three raters were strong for both craft (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC = 0.81) and LC (ICC = 0.76) and moderate for revision (ICC = 0.67). Using two sample t‐tests, we found that experts scored significantly higher in all three measures, especially in measures of craft and LC (P <0.0001), that is, those that were derived from the initial poems, prior to revision (Fig. 5). Although craft and LC scores both reflect the superior performance of experts, scores within each group are not significantly correlated with one another (Pearson's correlation coefficients: r = −0.16, P = 0.59 in experts; r = 0.23, P = 0.45 in novices), indicating that craft and LC in fact reflect two distinct aspects of quality. Experts also scored significantly higher than novices in improvement related to revision, but at a lower significance level (P <0.05). Examples of poems produced by experts and novices in both phases, and how these were scored are illustrated at the end of Supporting Information Results.


Brain activity and connectivity during poetry composition: Toward a multidimensional model of the creative process.

Liu S, Erkkinen MG, Healey ML, Xu Y, Swett KE, Chow HM, Braun AR - Hum Brain Mapp (2015)

Measures of craft, linguistic creativity, and improvement by revision in experts and novices.Two sample t‐tests showed experts scored significantly higher in all measures than novices (N = 27, mean ± standard error, *** indicates P < 0.001, * indicates P < 0.05).
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy-nc-nd
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4581594&req=5

hbm22849-fig-0005: Measures of craft, linguistic creativity, and improvement by revision in experts and novices.Two sample t‐tests showed experts scored significantly higher in all measures than novices (N = 27, mean ± standard error, *** indicates P < 0.001, * indicates P < 0.05).
Mentions: To quantify differences in the quality of poems produced in the scanner, a group of three independent experts blindly rated the poems produced by each subject; measures of quality included ratings for craft (incorporating elements of sound, form, figurative and sensory language), linguistic creativity (LC—the innovative use of craft elements) and improvement following revision. Measures of inter‐rater reliability among three raters were strong for both craft (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC = 0.81) and LC (ICC = 0.76) and moderate for revision (ICC = 0.67). Using two sample t‐tests, we found that experts scored significantly higher in all three measures, especially in measures of craft and LC (P <0.0001), that is, those that were derived from the initial poems, prior to revision (Fig. 5). Although craft and LC scores both reflect the superior performance of experts, scores within each group are not significantly correlated with one another (Pearson's correlation coefficients: r = −0.16, P = 0.59 in experts; r = 0.23, P = 0.45 in novices), indicating that craft and LC in fact reflect two distinct aspects of quality. Experts also scored significantly higher than novices in improvement related to revision, but at a lower significance level (P <0.05). Examples of poems produced by experts and novices in both phases, and how these were scored are illustrated at the end of Supporting Information Results.

Bottom Line: Distinct activation patterns were associated with generation and revision, two major phases of the creative process.Experts showed significantly stronger deactivation of DLPFC/IPS during generation, suggesting that they may more effectively suspend cognitive control.Quality of poetry, assessed by an independent panel, was associated with divergent connectivity patterns in experts and novices, centered upon MPFC (for technical facility) and DLPFC/IPS (for innovation), suggesting a mechanism by which experts produce higher quality poetry.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Language Section, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892.

Show MeSH