skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Work in Progress: Using Neuro-responses to Understand Creativity, the Engineering Design Process, and Concept Generation
Title: Work in Progress: Using Neuro-responses to Understand Creativity, the Engineering Design Process, and Concept Generation
Investigations of creativity have been an intriguing topic for a long time, but assessing creativity is extremely complex. Creativity is a cornerstone of engineering disciplines, so understanding creativity and how to enhance creative abilities through engineering education has received substantial attention. Fields outside of engineering are no stranger to neuro-investigations of creativity and although some neuro-response studies have been conducted to understand creativity in engineering, these studies need to map the engineering design and concept generation processes better. Using neuroimaging techniques alongside engineering design and concept generation processes is necessary for understanding how to improve creative idea generation and creativity studies in engineering. In this paper, a survey is provided of the literature for the different neurological approaches that have been used to study the engineering design process and creative processes. Also presented are proposed strategies to apply these neurological approaches to engineering design to understand the creative process in greater detail. Furthermore, results from a pilot study investigating neuro-responses of engineers are presented.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1561660 1726358
NSF-PAR ID:
10208519
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Paper presented at 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Proceedings of the ASME 2020 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE202-)
    null (Ed.)
    Design researchers have long sought to understand the mechanisms that support creative idea development. However, one of the key challenges faced by the design community is how to effectively measure the nebulous construct of creativity. The social science and engineering communities have adopted two vastly different approaches to solving this problem, both of which have been deployed throughout engineering design research. The goal of this paper was to compare and contrast these two approaches using design ratings of nearly 1000 engineering design ideas paired with a qualitative study with expert raters. The results of this study identify that while these two methods provide similar ratings of idea quality, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between these methods for ratings of idea novelty. Qualitative analysis of recordings from expert raters’ think aloud concept mapping points to potential sources of disagreement. In addition, the results show that while quasi-expert and expert raters provided similar ratings of design novelty, there was not significant agreement between these groups for ratings of design quality. The results of this study provide guidance for the deployment of idea ratings in engineering design research and evidence for the development and potential modification of engineering design creativity metrics. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ( , ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences)
    The capabilities of additive manufacturing (AM) open up designers’ solution space and enable them to build designs previously impossible through traditional manufacturing. To leverage AM, designers must not only generate creative ideas, but also propagate these ideas without discarding them in the early design stages. This emphasis on selecting creative ideas is particularly important in design for AM (DfAM), as ideas perceived as infeasible through the traditional design for manufacturing lens could now be feasible with AM. Several studies have discussed the role of DfAM in encouraging creative idea generation; however, there is a need to understand concept selection in DfAM. In this paper, we investigated the effect of two variations in DfAM education: 1) restrictive DfAM and 2) dual DfAM (opportunistic and restrictive) on students’ concept selection process. Specifically, we compared the creativity of the concepts generated by the students to the creativity of the concepts selected by them. Further, we performed qualitative analyses to explore the rationale provided by the students in making these design decisions. From the results, we see that teams from both educational groups select ideas of greater usefulness; however, only teams from the restrictive DfAM group select ideas of higher uniqueness and overall creativity. Further, we see that introducing students to opportunistic DfAM increases their emphasis on the complexity of designs when evaluating and selecting them. These results highlight the need for DfAM education to encourage AM designers to not just generate but also select creative ideas. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ( , Proceedings of the ... ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences)
    Design for manufacturing provides engineers with a structure for accommodating the limitations of traditional manufacturing processes. However, little emphasis is typically given to the capabilities of processes that enable novel design geometries, which are often a point of focus when designing products to be made with additive manufacturing (AM) technologies. In addition, limited research has been conducted to understand how knowledge of both the capabilities (i.e., opportunistic) and limitations (i.e., restrictive aspects) of AM affects design outcomes. This study aims to address this gap by investigating the effect of no, restrictive, and both, opportunistic and restrictive (dual) design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) education on engineering students’ creative process. Based on the componential model of creativity [1], these effects were measured through changes in (1) motivation and interest in AM, (2) DfAM self-efficacy, and (3) the emphasis given to DfAM in the design process. These metrics were chosen as they represent the cognitive components of ‘task-motivation’ and ‘domain relevant skills’, which in turn influence the learning and usage of domain knowledge in creative production. The results of the study show that while the short (45 minute) DfAM intervention did not significantly change student motivation and interest towards AM, students showed high levels of motivation and interest towards AM, before the intervention. Teaching students different aspects of DfAM also resulted in an increase in their self-efficacy in the respective topics. However, despite showing a greater increase in self-efficacy in their respective areas of training, the students did not show differences in the emphasis they gave to these DfAM concepts, in the design process. Further, students from all three education groups showed higher use of restrictive concepts, in comparison to opportunistic DfAM. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Journal of Mechanical Design)
    null (Ed.)
    Abstract Design researchers have long sought to understand the mechanisms that support creative idea development. However, one of the key challenges faced by the design community is how to effectively measure the nebulous construct of creativity. The social science and engineering communities have adopted two vastly different approaches to solving this problem, both of which have been deployed throughout engineering design research. The goal of this paper was to compare and contrast these two approaches using design ratings of nearly 1000 engineering design ideas. The results of this study identify that while these two methods provide similar ratings of idea quality, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between these methods for ratings of idea novelty. In addition, the results show discrepancies in the reliability and consistency of global ratings of creativity. The results of this study guide the deployment of idea ratings in engineering design research and evidence. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Journal of Mechanical Design)
    Abstract While psychological safety is a consistent, generalizable, and multilevel predictor of outcomes in team performance across fields that can positively impact the creative process, there have been limited investigations of psychological safety in the engineering domain. Without this knowledge, we do not know whether fostering psychological safety in a team environment is important for specific engineering design outputs from concept generation and screening practices. This study provides one of the first attempts at addressing this research gap through an empirical study with 69 engineering design student teams over the course of 4- and 8-week design projects. Specifically, we sought to identify the role of psychological safety on the number and quality (judged by goodness) of ideas generated. In addition, we explored the role of psychological safety on ownership bias and goodness in the concept screening process. The results of the study identified that while psychological safety was negatively related to the number of ideas a team developed, it was positively related to the quality (goodness) of the ideas developed. This result indicates that while psychological safety may not increase team productivity in terms of the number of ideas produced, it may impact team effectiveness in coming up with viable candidate ideas to move forward in the design process. In addition, there was no relationship between psychological safety and ownership bias during concept screening. These findings provide quantitative evidence on the role of psychological safety on engineering team idea production and identify areas for further study. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email