Nagy Boglárka, Czigler István, Csizmadia Petra, File Domonkos, Fáy Nóra, Gaál Zsófia Anna
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.
Department of Cognitive Science, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2023 Feb 2;17:1033508. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1033508. eCollection 2023.
Based on the two-factor model of creativity, two distinct types of creative problem solving can be differentiated: innovative ("do things differently") and adaptive ("do things better"). Flexible cognitive control is a crucial concept in connection with both general and specific styles of creativity: innovative problem-solving benefits from broader attention and flexible mental set shifting; while adaptive creativity relies on focused attention and persistent goal-oriented processes. We applied an informatively cued task-switching paradigm which is suitable for measuring different cognitive control processes and mechanisms like proactive and reactive control. We hypothesized that adaptive creativity is connected to effective proactive control processes, while innovative creativity is based on reactive task-execution. As we have found no previous evidence how age-related changes in cognitive control affects creative cognition; we also examined the effect of healthy aging on different problem-solving styles in an explorative way.
Our participants, 37 younger (18-30 years) and 37 older (60-75 years) adults, were divided into innovative and adaptive creative groups according to the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking's Figural Subtest (Hungarian version).
Our results showed that among younger adults the adaptively creative group had larger cue-locked CNV component (effective preparatory activity connected to proactive control), while the innovatively creative group had a larger target-locked P3b component (effective target evaluation and categorization in line with reactive control) which supports a functional difference in the two creative styles. By contrast, in older adults innovative problem-solving showed larger mixing costs (less effective maintenance and selection of task sets), and the lack of trial type effect on target-locked N2b (target-induced goal reactivation and less effective conflict resolution); while adaptive problem-solving caused them to make fewer errors (accuracy-oriented behavior).
All in all, innovative and adaptive creativity is based on distinct cognitive control mechanisms in both age-groups, but their processing level is affected by age-related changes.
基于创造力的双因素模型，可以区分出两种不同类型的创造性问题解决方式：创新型（“以不同方式做事”）和适应型（“把事情做得更好”）。灵活认知控制是与一般和特定创造力风格相关的一个关键概念：创新问题解决得益于更广泛的注意力和灵活的思维定势转换；而适应型创造力则依赖于集中注意力和持续的目标导向过程。我们应用了一种信息提示任务切换范式，该范式适用于测量不同的认知控制过程和机制，如主动控制和反应控制。我们假设适应型创造力与有效的主动控制过程相关，而创新型创造力基于反应性任务执行。由于我们之前没有发现认知控制的年龄相关变化如何影响创造性认知的证据；我们还以探索性的方式研究了健康衰老对不同问题解决方式的影响。
我们的参与者，37名年轻人（18 - 30岁）和37名老年人（60 - 75岁），根据托兰斯创造性思维测验的图形子测验（匈牙利语版本）被分为创新型和适应型创造性小组。
我们的结果表明，在年轻人中，适应型创造性小组具有更大的线索锁定CNV成分（与主动控制相关的有效准备活动），而创新型创造性小组具有更大的目标锁定P3b成分（与反应控制一致的有效目标评估和分类），这支持了两种创造性风格中的功能差异。相比之下，在老年人中，创新问题解决表现出更大的混合成本（任务集的维持和选择效率较低），以及目标锁定N2b缺乏试验类型效应（目标诱导的目标重新激活和冲突解决效率较低）；而适应问题解决使他们犯的错误更少（以准确性为导向的行为）。
总而言之，创新型和适应型创造力在两个年龄组中都基于不同的认知控制机制，但它们的处理水平受到年龄相关变化的影响。
