Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35906880›Full record

SynthesisHuman brain mapping2022

Uncovering neural distinctions and commodities between two creativity subsets: A meta-analysis of fMRI studies in divergent thinking and insight using activation likelihood estimation.

Changyi Kuang, Jun Chen, Jiawen Chen, Yafei Shi, Huiyuan Huang, Bingqing Jiao, Qiwen Lin, Yuyang Rao, Wenting Liu, Yunpeng Zhu and 3 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human brain mapping, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Changyi KuangDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7033-7467
Jun ChenCenter for Studies of Psychological Application, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Jiawen ChenDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Yafei ShiDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Huiyuan HuangDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Bingqing JiaoDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Qiwen LinDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Yuyang RaoDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Wenting LiuDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Yunpeng ZhuDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3655-8546
Lei MoCenter for Studies of Psychological Application, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Lijun MaDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Jiabao LinDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The dual-process theory that two different systems of thought coexist in creative thinking has attracted considerable attention. In the field of creative thinking, divergent thinking (DT) is the ability to produce multiple solutions to open-ended problems in a short time. It is mainly considered an associative and fast process. Meanwhile, insight, the new and unexpected comprehension of close-ended problems, is frequently marked as a deliberate and time-consuming thinking process requiring concentrated effort. Previous research has been dedicated to revealing their separate neural mechanisms, while few studies have compared their differences and similarities at the brain level. Therefore, the current study applied Activation Likelihood Estimation to decipher common and distinctive neural pathways that potentially underlie DT and insight. We selected 27 DT studies and 30 insight studies for retrospective meta-analyses. Initially, two single analyses with follow-up contrast and conjunction analyses were performed. The single analyses showed that DT mainly involved the inferior parietal lobe (IPL), cuneus, and middle frontal gyrus (MFG), while the precentral gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), parahippocampal gyrus (PG), amygdala (AMG), and superior parietal lobe were engaged in insight. Compared to insight, DT mainly led to greater activation in the IPL, the crucial part of the default mode network. However, insight caused more significant activation in regions related to executive control functions and emotional responses, such as the IFG, MFG, PG, and AMG. Notably, the conjunction analysis detected no overlapped areas between DT and insight. These neural findings implicate that various neurocognitive circuits may support DT and insight.

Indexed as

CreativityMagnetic Resonance ImagingBrainBrain MappingHumansLikelihood FunctionsRetrospective StudiesALEdivergent thinkingfMRIinsightmeta-analysisneural mechanism

Identifiers

PMID35906880
PMCPMC9582370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.