ArticleScientific reports2026
Neurocognitive differences in sketching between design tasks and creativity tests.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates differences in brain activity among thirty-seven engineering students during sketching in a creativity test and a design task. Using EEG data, we first examined the impact of baseline selection (eyes-open vs. eyes-closed) on the representation of results in terms of de/synchronization across frequency bands from theta (4–7 Hz) to lower gamma (30-45 Hz). Specifically, an eyes-closed baseline allowed for the observation of alpha desynchronization during sketching, whereas an eyes-open baseline, which better aligns with real-world design conditions, shifted the pattern to synchronization. Under the eyes-open baseline, the comparisons between the two sketching tasks revealed the following results: (1) regions that showed significant bilateral TRP asymmetries in creativity test sketching also exhibited differences in design sketching across frequency bands from theta to beta band. Areas that exhibited significant bilateral TRP asymmetry only in design sketching were located in the temporal sites (theta and beta), suggesting these areas within the corresponding frequency bands could serve as indicators for distinguishing between the two cognitive tasks. (2) Statistically significant differences between the two sketching tasks in channel comparisons were primarily observed in the theta and sub-alpha bands, especially in the left frontal and right hemisphere areas. (3) The beta band exhibited similar behavior across both sketching tasks, indicating shared cognitive processes in different sketching contexts. (4) While the lower gamma band did not show significant differences in channel comparisons between tasks, it exhibited distinct bilateral TRP asymmetry in the frontocentral area only in the creativity test, highlighting the potential of bilateral asymmetry as a more sensitive measure for distinguishing between design and creativity tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.