↓ Skip to main content

The promises and perils of the neuroscience of creativity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
247 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The promises and perils of the neuroscience of creativity
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00246
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Abraham

Abstract

Our ability to think creatively is one of the factors that generates excitement in our lives as it introduces novelty and opens up new possibilities to our awareness which in turn lead to developments in a variety of fields from science and technology to art and culture. While research on the influence of biologically-based variables on creativity has a long history, the advent of modern techniques for investigating brain structure and function in the past two decades have resulted in an exponential increase in the number of neuroscientific studies that have explored creativity. The field of creative neurocognition is a rapidly growing area of research that can appear chaotic and inaccessible because of the heterogeneity associated with the creativity construct and the many approaches through which it can be examined. There are also significant methodological and conceptual problems that are specific to the neuroscientific study of creativity that pose considerable limitations on our capacity to make true advances in understanding the brain basis of creativity. This article explores three key issues that need to be addressed so that barriers in the way of relevant progress being made within the field can be avoided. Are creativity neuroimaging paradigms optimal enough?What makes creative cognition different from normative cognition?Do we need to distinguish between types of creativity?

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
China 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 230 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 20%
Researcher 34 14%
Student > Master 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 5%
Other 53 21%
Unknown 39 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 83 34%
Neuroscience 29 12%
Social Sciences 17 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 7%
Arts and Humanities 8 3%
Other 48 19%
Unknown 45 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,463,794
of 24,045,834 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#682
of 7,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,399
of 288,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#113
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,045,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 860 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.