1. Attention Components and Creative Potential: An ERP Exploration
Naba Ahsan, Kathy Van Benthem, Kasia Muldner
Institute of Cognitive Science
Carleton University

2. A definition for creativity
Creativity = Novel and useful ideas
Involves various forms of thinking
Divergent thinking test of creativity = Alternative Uses Task; Incomplete figure drawing
Convergent thinking test of creativity = Insight; RAT (Remote Associates Test)

3. Divergent thinking: Alternative Uses Task
How many uses can you come up with for a paper clip? A shoe? A hanger? Etc.
Incomplete figure drawing:

4. Convergent thinking: CRA
Come up with a single word that links to each of the three words independently, to create three familiar compound words of phrases
Swiss Cottage Brick

5. river note account

6. river note account BANK

7. teeth arrest start

8. teeth arrest start FALSE

9. Attentional Styles
Creative individuals = focused/ defocused attention?
Several models mention the importance of attention in creative performance i.e. Guilford (1950), Kris (1952)
What kind of attention improves creativity?
Defocused attention -> higher RAT scores (Mendelsohn, 1976)
Focused attention -> higher performance on a standard creative thinking- drawing test (Groborz & Necka, 2003)

10. Temporal dynamics of creativity
Why EEG?
Allows for mapping time-sensitive aspects of creative cognition
Ability to time-lock neural components with stimuli events
Zabelina et al. (2015) investigated relationships among attention, divergent thinking based creativity and real-world creative achievement

11. P50 paradigm
Observed 50 ms after stimulus onset

12. P50 = ability to filter out “irrelevant” information (represented by neural response to Tone 2 vs. Tone 1)
Higher or equal response to second tone = leaky attention
Lower response to second tone = selective attention
Voltage (µV)
Voltage (µV) 50 50
Time (ms) 50 50
Time (ms)
Tone 1
Tone 2
Tone 1
Tone 2

13. Creativity + P50 (Zabelina et al. findings)
Divergent thinking + P50 = negative correlation
Real-world creative achievement + P50 = positive correlation
Divergent thinkers show more selective attention
Real-world creative achievers have leakier attention

14. Our aim Replicate Zabelina et al. (2015) Extend
Correlate P50 responses and the divergent thinking test of creativity (ATTA)
Extend
A convergent thinking test of creativity – the Compound Remote Associates task (CRA)
A non-creative, convergent task

15. Research questions
What is the relationship between P50 responses and a convergent thinking test of creativity (CRA)?
What is the relationship between P50 responses and a divergent thinking test of creativity (ATTA)?
What is the relationship between P50 responses and a non- creative, convergent thinking task?

16. Methods

17. Methodology overview 1) 2) 3)
Participants completed series of tasks – used to assess convergent, divergent and non-creative thinking
Participants fitted with EEG net – to collect attentional data
Analysis of EEG data

18. Task 1: Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA)
Divergent thinking test of creativity
Scored on originality, fluency, elaboration and flexibility
1 verbal, 2 figural tasks

19. Task 2: Compound Remote Associates (CRA)
Come up with a single word that combines with each of the 3 stimuli words independently, to create a familiar word or compound phrase
[stimuli words] cottage Swiss brick
[answer] Cheese

20. Task 3: Control task
Find the difference between the number of consonants and the number of vowels across all 3 words
[stimuli words] cottage Swiss brick
[answer]

21. Methodology overview 1) 2) 3)
Participants completed series of tasks – used to assess divergent, convergent and non-creative thinking
Participants fitted with EEG net – to collect attentional data
Analysis of EEG data

22. P50 Component Participants fitted with EEG net
Remain still, refrain from blinking, moving, etc.
1 trial = 2 auditory tones, 500 ms apart
1 tone = 1 ms
Inter-pair intervals pseudo-randomized at 6, 8 or 10 secs
100 tone pairs (14 minutes)
500 ms
6, 8, or 10 s
Tone 1
Tone 2
Tone 1
Tone 2

23. Methodology overview 1) 2) 3)
Participants completed series of tasks – used to assess divergent, convergent and non-creative thinking
Participants fitted with EEG net – to collect attentional data
Analysis of EEG data

24. Analysis methods N = 18 (original N = 36)
Raw EEG data recorded in NetStation; processed in EEGLAB (MATLAB toolbox)
Artifact cleaning (notch filtered at Hz to remove line noise; removal of eye blinks, muscle movement, bad channels)
Low-pass filter 1 Hz, high-pass filter 70 Hz
Peak amplitudes extracted for P50

25. Results

26. Significant differences at P50 between tone 1 and tone 2 at p > 0

27. Results Research question 1: P50 and CRA
r(16)=.178, p=.480
Research question 2: P50 and ATTA
r(16)=.250, p=.317
Research question 3:P50 and Control
r(16)=-.336, p=.173

28. Descriptive graphs
P50 + CRA
P50 + ATTA
P50 + Control

29. Summary and future directions
Have not found evidence that any form of creativity is associated with sensory gating (neither convergent, divergent, nor control)
Both fails to replicate Zabelina, as well as not finding a
Possible directions:
Time-frequency analysis
Relationships among other components associated with sensory gating – namely N100 and P200

30. P50 ratio vs. difference method
Ratio (Tone2/ Tone 1) most commonly cited, but some literature suggests the difference method (Tone 2 – Tone 1) may offer better results – possible point of analysis

31. Thank you!