ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
The determination of human creative thinking by employing machine learning classification on EEG signals.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Traditional creativity assessments are limited by subjectivity and high labor costs. Although machine learning (ML) offers objective alternatives, its application to EEG-based creativity evaluation remains scarce. This study aimed to classify high and low creative thinking from EEG signals using ML. Methods: One hundred forty participants completed the Alternative Uses Task during EEG recording. Three independent raters (none were authors) evaluated response originality using the Consensus Assessment Technique on a 1-to-5 scale; mean scores were dichotomized at the median into high- and low-creativity labels (996 and 1,096 trials, respectively, from 2,092 valid trials). Classification features included alpha-band Power Spectral Density (PSD), Approximate Entropy, Sample Entropy, and a combined feature set. Six classifiers-Support Vector Machine (SVM), Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA), Logistic Regression (LogR), Decision Tree (DT), XGBoost, and LightGBM-were trained and evaluated using a 10-fold cross-validation strategy. To prevent subject-level information leakage, a Leave-One-Subject-Out (LOSO) validation was additionally conducted. Results: All six classifiers effectively distinguished creativity levels. Under 10-fold cross-validation, SVM achieved optimal performance using Approximate Entropy or Sample Entropy ( Conclusion: ML effectively classifies creativity from EEG signals. The superior performance of entropy features, supported by both trial-level and subject-independent validation, highlights the robustness of the proposed approach and its potential for developing objective, scalable creativity assessment tools.
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.