skip to main content
10.1145/3589335.3651267acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Open Access

Modeling Multidimensional Cognitive Search in Creativity with Generalized Additive Model

Published:13 May 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

Creativity is the ability to develop innovative functional ideas through unconventional associations. The consensus view on creativity in the literature involves divergence from stereotypical and habitual thought patterns [29, 39]. Creativity relies on search to explore diverse solutions. Search requires charting the mental terrain, leveraging past experiences and knowledge to manipulate and reconfigure components for new solutions [28]. The generally-accepted and overly-narrow view on creativity, however, neglects the fact that creativity is multidimensional [14]. This one-dimensional view of creativity triggers questions such as "Does one consider an unethical but novel creation to be creative?" and "Does one consider a new iPhone with mainstream functionalities but advanced camera features to be creative?" This research challenges the one-dimensional view of creativity, offering a more all-encompassing conceptualization of creativity [14]. The research examines the multidimensional nature of creativity by building a computational model of a designer's mutual search process across multiple mutually dependent search spaces. The research examines the trajectory of mutual search across multiple cognitive search spaces using a Generalized Additive Model (GAM). The field experiment employs 108 designers who develop their web designs through five iterations, utilizing computer graphics methods to extract the images. Through measuring the distance of search by considering changes in visual and source code in each iteration, the study argues that the search patterns differ in the degree of exploration in these search spaces over time. The research concludes that designers' search processes are non-linear and argues that there are more than one or two search spaces. The research also provides perceptual explanations of the multiple search processes in designs and argues for a more encompassing view of creativity.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

phd7905.mov

Supplemental video

mov

16.9 MB

References

  1. Neal Andrew Barton, Timothy Stephen Farewell, and Stephen Henry Hallett. 2020. Using generalized additive models to investigate the environmental effects on pipe failure in clean water networks. npj clean water, Vol. 3, 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-020-0077-3 Place: London Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Stephan Billinger, Nils Stieglitz, and Terry R. Schumacher. 2014. Search on Rugged Landscapes: An Experimental Study. Organization Science, Vol. 25, 1 (Feb. 2014), 93--108. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0829Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Neil D. B. Bruce and John K. Tsotsos. 2009. Saliency, attention, and visual search: An information theoretic approach. Journal of Vision, Vol. 9, 3 (March 2009), 5. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.3.5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Francisco Cribari-Neto and Achim Zeileis. 2010. Beta Regression in R. Journal of Statistical Software, Vol. 34, 2 (2010). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v034.i02Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Bradley B. Doll, Dylan A. Simon, and Nathaniel D. Daw. 2012. The ubiquity of model-based reinforcement learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Vol. 22, 6 (Dec. 2012), 1075--1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.08.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. C. Von Ehrenfels and Barry Smith. 1988. On 'Gestalt qualities' (trans. B. Smith). https://philarchive.org/rec/EHROQGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Gabriela Goldschmidt and Dan Tatsa. 2005. How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design studies, Vol. 26, 6 (2005), 593--611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.02.004 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Laura Hay, Alex H. B. Duffy, Chris McTeague, Laura M. Pidgeon, Tijana Vuletic, and Madeleine Grealy. 2017. A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: Design as search and exploration. Design Science, Vol. 3 (2017), e10. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.11Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. P. P. M. Hekkert. 2006. Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychology science, Vol. 48, 2 (2006), 157--. https://search.proquest.com/publiccontent/docview/212187725?pq-origsite=primo Place: Lengerich Publisher: PABST Science Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sara Ilstedt Hjelm. 2002. Semiotics in product design. CID (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ivanka Iordanova. 2007. Teaching Digital Design Exploration: Form Follows?. International Journal of Architectural Computing, Vol. 5, 4 (Dec. 2007), 685--702. https://doi.org/10.1260/147807707783600807 Publisher: SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Paul Jaccard. 1912. The Distribution of the Flora in the Alpine Zone. 1. New Phytologist, Vol. 11, 2 (1912), 37--50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469--8137.1912.tb05611.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Ahmad Jbara and Dror G. Feitelson. 2017. How programmers read regular code: a controlled experiment using eye tracking. Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 22, 3 (June 2017), 1440--1477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9477-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Panagiotis G. Kampylis and Juri Valtanen. 2010. Redefining creativity - analyzing definitions, collocations, and consequences. The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 44, 3 (2010), 191--214. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162--6057.2010.tb01333.x Place: US Publisher: Creative Education Foundation.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Ruth Kimchi. 1992. Primacy of Wholistic Processing and Global/Local Paradigm: A Critical Review. Psychological bulletin, Vol. 112, 1 (1992), 24--38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.24 Place: Washington, DC Publisher: American Psychological Association.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. David A. Lauer and Stephen Pentak. 2011. Design Basics. Cengage Learning. Google-Books-ID: Jeo8AAAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Yu-Cheng Liu and Chaoyun Liang. 2020. Design exploration predicts designer creativity: a deep learning approach. Cognitive Neurodynamics, Vol. 14, 3 (June 2020), 291--300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11571-020-09569-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Mary Lou Maher, Josiah Poon, and Sylvie Boulanger. 1996. Formalising Design Exploration as Co-Evolution. In Advances in Formal Design Methods for CAD: Proceedings of the IFIP WG5. 2 Workshop on Formal Design Methods for Computer-Aided Design, June 1995, John S. Gero and Fay Sudweeks (Eds.). Springer US, Boston, MA, 3--30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34925-1_1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Rune Mono. 1997. Design for product understanding. Stockholm: Liber (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mozilla. 2023. Function - JavaScript textbar MDN. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/FunctionGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. David Navon. 1977. Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 9, 3 (July 1977), 353--383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Allan Paivio. 1990. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press. Google-Books-ID: hLGmKkh_4K8C.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Eric J. Pedersen, David L. Miller, Gavin L. Simpson, and Noam Ross. 2019. Hierarchical generalized additive models in ecology: an introduction with mgcv. PeerJ, Vol. 7 (May 2019), e6876. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6876Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Gerald M. Reicher. 1969. Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of experimental psychology, Vol. 81, 2 (1969), 275--280. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027768 Place: Washington, etc Publisher: American Psychological Association.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Paige Rodeghero, Cheng Liu, Paul W. McBurney, and Collin McMillan. 2015. An Eye-Tracking Study of Java Programmers and Application to Source Code Summarization. IEEE transactions on software engineering, Vol. 41, 11 (2015), 1038--1054. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2015.2442238 Place: New York Publisher: IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Muhammad Hafiz Wan Rosli and Andres Cabrera. 2015. Gestalt Principles in Multimodal Data Representation. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 35, 2 (March 2015), 80--87. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2015.29 Conference Name: IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Minna Huotilainen, Maarit Mäkelä, Camilla Groth, and Kai Hakkarainen. 2016. How can neuroscience help understand design and craft activity? The promise of cognitive neuroscience in design studies. Formakademisk, Vol. 9, 1 (2016). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1478 Publisher: Formakademisk, Oslo.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Herbert A. Simon and Allen Newell. 1971. Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist, Vol. 26 (1971), 145--159. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030806Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Giuseppe Soda and Lorenzo Bizzi. 2012. Think different? An investigation of network antecedents and performance consequences of creativity as deviation. Strategic Organization 10, 2 (May 2012), 99?127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127012442852 Publisher: SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Sonja Stork and Anna Schubö. 2010. Human cognition in manual assembly: Theories and applications. Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 24, 3 (Aug. 2010), 320--328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.05.010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Louis Sullivan. 1896. The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. (1896).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. A. Sutcliffe. 2002. Assessing the reliability of heuristic evaluation for Web site attractiveness and usability. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1838--1847. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2002.994098Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Johan Wagemans, Jacob Feldman, Sergei Gepshtein, Ruth Kimchi, James R. Pomerantz, Peter A. van der Helm, and Cees van Leeuwen. 2012. A Century of Gestalt Psychology in Visual Perception II. Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations. Psychological bulletin, Vol. 138, 6 (Nov. 2012), 1218--1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029334Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Zhou Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Vol. 13, 4 (April 2004), 600--612. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2003.819861Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Max Wertheimer. 1938. Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In A source book of Gestalt psychology. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company, London, England, 71--88. https://doi.org/10.1037/11496-005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Jeremy M. Wolfe. 2000. Chapter 8 - Visual Attention. In Seeing, Karen K. De Valois (Ed.). Academic Press, San Diego, 335--386. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012443760-9/50010-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Bang Wong. 2010. Gestalt principles (Part 1). Nature Methods, Vol. 7, 11 (Nov. 2010), 863--863. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth1110-863 Number: 11 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Simon N. Wood. 2017. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, Second Edition. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jing Zhou and Christina E. Shalley. 2011. Deepening our understanding of creativity in the workplace: A review of different approaches to creativity research. In APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 1: Building and developing the organization. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 275--302. https://doi.org/10.1037/12169-009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Alain Zuur, Elena N. Ieno, Neil Walker, Anatoly A. Saveliev, and Graham M. Smith. 2009. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. Springer Science & Business Media. Google-Books-ID: vQUNprFZKHsC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Modeling Multidimensional Cognitive Search in Creativity with Generalized Additive Model

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Article Metrics

              • Downloads (Last 12 months)26
              • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)26

              Other Metrics

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader