Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37919616›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

AuDrA: An automated drawing assessment platform for evaluating creativity.

John D Patterson, Baptiste Barbot, James Lloyd-Cox, Roger E Beaty

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

John D PattersonDepartment of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. jpttrsn@psu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7455-3535
Baptiste BarbotPsychological and Educational Sciences Research Institute, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5096-2596
James Lloyd-CoxDepartment of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3492-9638
Roger E BeatyDepartment of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6114-5973
Pennsylvania State University · USGoldsmiths University of London · GBYale University · US

Funding

National Science Foundation DRL-1920653National Science Foundation DUE- 2155070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The visual modality is central to both reception and expression of human creativity. Creativity assessment paradigms, such as structured drawing tasks Barbot (2018), seek to characterize this key modality of creative ideation. However, visual creativity assessment paradigms often rely on cohorts of expert or naïve raters to gauge the level of creativity of the outputs. This comes at the cost of substantial human investment in both time and labor. To address these issues, recent work has leveraged the power of machine learning techniques to automatically extract creativity scores in the verbal domain (e.g., SemDis; Beaty & Johnson 2021). Yet, a comparably well-vetted solution for the assessment of visual creativity is missing. Here, we introduce AuDrA - an Automated Drawing Assessment platform to extract visual creativity scores from simple drawing productions. Using a collection of line drawings and human creativity ratings, we trained AuDrA and tested its generalizability to untrained drawing sets, raters, and tasks. Across four datasets, nearly 60 raters, and over 13,000 drawings, we found AuDrA scores to be highly correlated with human creativity ratings for new drawings on the same drawing task (r = .65 to .81; mean = .76). Importantly, correlations between AuDrA scores and human raters surpassed those between drawings' elaboration (i.e., ink on the page) and human creativity raters, suggesting that AuDrA is sensitive to features of drawings beyond simple degree of complexity. We discuss future directions, limitations, and link the trained AuDrA model and a tutorial ( https://osf.io/kqn9v/ ) to enable researchers to efficiently assess new drawings.

Indexed as

CreativityMachine LearningAdultArtFemaleHumansMaleAutomated creativity scoringComputational creativityDivergent thinkingDrawing assessmentVisual creativity

Identifiers

PMID37919616
PMCPMC11133150
OpenAlexW4388210637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.