Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39506636›Full record

ReviewBMC neuroscience2024

De-sync: disruption of synchronization as a key factor in individual and collective creative processes.

Julien Laroche, Asaf Bachrach, Lior Noy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Julien LarocheCenter for Translational Neurophysiology of Speech and Communication, Italian Institute of Technology, Ferrara, Italy. lajulienroche@gmail.com.
Asaf BachrachStructures Formelles du Langage, UMR 7023, CNRS, Paris, France.
Lior NoyFaculty of Business Administration, Ono Academic College, Kiryat Ono, Israel.

Funding

European Union H2020 FETPROACT-824160
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Creativity is a key skill for the twenty-first century, where the individual and collective imperative to adapt is omnipresent. Yet, it is still unclear how to put creativity theories into practice, which signals a lacuna in our understanding of the pragmatic means by which we get creative. This paper starts from the identification of a number of gaps in the literature. In particular, individual and group creativity are usually treated separately, and the emphasis on the search for novelty seems to overshadow the importance experts give to the disruption of their habitual patterns of behavior. To overcome these gaps, we propose foundations for a unifying framework that takes the perspective of dynamical systems. Specifically, we suggest that de-synchronization, a hallmark of disruption, is an integral part of the creative processes that operate across individual and collective levels of analysis. We show that by conjuring uncertainty, de-synchronized states provide opportunities for creative reorganization. In order to ground this framework, we survey and discuss existing literature, and focus on group improvisation practices (in particular, music and dance improvisation), where partners use the dynamics of their interaction to bring forth a collective performance in real-time. In these practices, disruption by de-synchronization, termed here as 'problematization of coordination', is a pragmatic approach used to push the creative process forward. We suggest that this approach might also be relevant in other types of individual and collective creative processes.

Indexed as

CreativityGroup ProcessesHumansMusicCollective dynamicsCreativityDe-synchronizationDisruptionDistributed creativityDynamical systemsGroup creativitySynchronization

Identifiers

PMID39506636
PMCPMC11539736

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.