Creativity and the Brain

Neurocognitive approach to higher cognitive functions that bridges the gap between psychological and neural level of description is introduced. Relevant facts about the brain, working memory and representation of symbols in the brain are summarized. Putative brain processes responsible for problem solving, intuition, skill learning and automatization are described. The role of non-dominant brain hemisphere in solving problems requiring insight is conjectured. Two factors seem to be essential for creativity: imagination constrained by experience, and filtering that selects most interesting solutions. Experiments with paired words association are analyzed in details and evidence for stochastic resonance effects is found. Brain activity in the process of invention of novel words is proposed as the simplest way to understand creativity using experimental and computational means. Perspectives on computational models of creativity are discussed

A Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative Systems: Computational Creativity Evaluation Based on What it is to be Creative

Computational creativity is a flourishing research area, with a variety of creative systems being produced and developed. Creativity evaluation has not kept pace with system development with an evident lack of systematic evaluation of the creativity of these systems in the literature. This is partially due to difficulties in defining what it means for a computer to be creative; indeed, there is no consensus on this for human creativity, let alone its computational equivalent. This paper proposes a Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative Systems (SPECS). SPECS is a three-step process: stating what it means for a particular computational system to be creative, deriving and performing tests based on these statements. To assist this process, the paper offers a collection of key components of creativity, identified empirically from discussions of human and computational creativity. Using this approach, the SPECS methodology is demonstrated through a comparative case study evaluating computational creativity systems that improvise music

Automated Generation of Cross-Domain Analogies via Evolutionary Computation

Analogy plays an important role in creativity, and is extensively used in science as well as art. In this paper we introduce a technique for the automated generation of cross-domain analogies based on a novel evolutionary algorithm (EA). Unlike existing work in computational analogy-making restricted to creating analogies between two given cases, our approach, for a given case, is capable of creating an analogy along with the novel analogous case itself. Our algorithm is based on the concept of "memes", which are units of culture, or knowledge, undergoing variation and selection under a fitness measure, and represents evolving pieces of knowledge as semantic networks. Using a fitness function based on Gentner's structure mapping theory of analogies, we demonstrate the feasibility of spontaneously generating semantic networks that are analogous to a given base network.Comment: Conference submission, International Conference on Computational Creativity 2012 (8 pages, 6 figures

Four PPPPerspectives on Computational Creativity

From what perspective should creativity of a system be considered? Are we interested in the creativity of the system’s out- put? The creativity of the system itself? Or of its creative processes? Creativity as measured by internal features or by external feedback? Traditionally within computational creativity the focus had been on the creativity of the system’s Products or of its Processes, though this focus has widened recently regarding the role of the audience or the field surrounding the creative system. In the wider creativity research community a broader take is prevalent: the creative Person is considered as well as the environment or Press within which the creative entity operates in. Here we have the Four Ps of creativity: Person, Product, Process and Press. This paper presents the Four Ps, explaining each of the Four Ps in the context of creativity research and how it relates to computational creativity. To illustrate how useful the Four Ps can be in taking a fuller perspective on creativity, the concepts of novelty and value explored from each of the Four P perspectives, uncovering aspects that may otherwise be overlooked. This paper argues that the broader view of creativity afforded by the Four Ps is vital in guiding us towards more encompassing and comprehensive computational investigations of creativity