Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42087520›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science

Origins and Evolution of Imagination, From Australopithecus to Modern-Day Deep Learning.

Kiranpreet K Sidhu, Raymond Roy, Amedeo D'Angiulli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors.

Kiranpreet K SidhuDepartment of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1134-1857
Raymond RoyDepartment of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6682-6670
Amedeo D'AngiulliDepartment of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8295-9850

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Where does imagination come from? How did it originate, and which organisms are capable of imagination? What deeper connections does imagination share with consciousness, survival, and the very essence of life? Across both scientific literature and public discourse, imagination is invoked to describe a wide range of phenomena, including artistic creativity, problem solving, symbolic thought, and mental imagery, much like the concept of consciousness, whose interpretation varies across theoretical perspectives. This conceptual breadth motivates the need for a more precise theoretical specification of imagination. In this Perspective, we update and extend prior work that formally specifies imagination as imaginative generativity (IG), a transdisciplinary theoretical construct describing the generative process through which organisms produce novel multisensory imaginings. Through IG, organisms can anticipate potential changes and challenges in their environments and guide internally guided actions. This generative capacity supports adaptive behavior that may extend beyond immediate individual survival to influence species-level development. The formal extension developed in this paper involves identifying the functional characteristics that distinguish imaginative/IG processes from related representational mechanisms such as vivid representing and mental imagery. Relative to our previous IG formulation, the present paper makes three specific contributions: it clarifies the distinction between vivid representing (VR) and imaginative generativity (IG), situates that distinction within an evolutionary and archaeological account of representational change, and uses contemporary AI systems as comparative cases for identifying restricted functional analogues of IG in the absence of reflective, self-awareness. The synthesis we offer uses the language of epistemology as an organizing infrastructure for the development of transdisciplinary theory. While imagination is intuitive, its study demands careful dismantling and re-examination of the underlying assumptions and grounding. Precedents for this methodology exist within psychology and consciousness studies; however, we additionally offer an integrative review to garner supporting evidence across neuroscience, biology, and cognitive science to refine contemporary understanding of imaginative processes and their relationship to cognition and consciousness.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionDeep LearningHominidaeImaginationAnimalsConsciousnessHumans

Identifiers

PMID42087520
PMCPMC13145320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.