Search for: All records

Abstract Identifying ways to enable people to reach their creative potential is a core goal of creativity research with implications for education and professional attainment. Recently, we identified a potential barrier to creative achievement: creativity anxiety (i.e., anxiety specific to creative thinking). Initial work found that creativity anxiety is associated with fewer real-world creative achievements. However, the more proximal impacts of creativity anxiety remain unexplored. In particular, understanding how to overcome creativity anxiety requires understanding how creativity anxiety may or may not impact creative cognitive performance, and how it may relate to state-level anxiety and effort while completing creative tasks. The present study sought to address this gap by measuring creativity anxiety alongside several measures of creative performance, while concurrently surveying state-level anxiety and effort. Results indicated that creativity anxiety was, indeed, predictive of poor creative performance, but only on some of the tasks included. We also found that creativity anxiety predicted both state anxiety and effort during creative performance. Interestingly, state anxiety and effort did not explain the associations between creativity anxiety and creative performance. Together, this work suggests that creativity anxiety can often be overcome in the performance of creative tasks, but likewise points to increased state anxiety and effort as factors that may make creative performance and achievement fragile in more demanding real-world contexts. 

Abstract The brain’s modular functional organization facilitates adaptability. Modularity has been linked with a wide range of cognitive abilities such as intelligence, memory, and learning. However, much of this work has (1) considered modularity while a participant is at rest rather than during tasks conditions and/or (2) relied primarily on lab-based cognitive assessments. Thus, the extent to which modularity can provide information about real-word behavior remains largely unknown. Here, we investigated whether functional modularity during resting-state and task-based fMRI was associated with academic learning (measured by GPA) and ability (measured by PSAT) in a large sample of high school students. Additional questions concerned the extent to which modularity differs between rest and task conditions, and across spatial scales. Results indicated that whole-brain modularity during task conditions was significantly associated with academic learning. In contrast to prior work, no such associations were observed for resting-state modularity. We further showed that differences in modularity between task conditions and resting-state varied across spatial scales. Taken together, the present findings inform how functional brain network modularity – during task conditions and while at rest – relate to a range of cognitive abilities. 

Women reliably perform worse than men on measures of spatial ability, particularly those involving mental rotation. At the same time, females also report higher levels of spatial anxiety than males. What remains unclear, however, is whether and in what ways gender differences in these cognitive and affective aspects of spatial processing may be interrelated. Here, we tested for robust gender differences across six different datasets in spatial ability and spatial anxiety (N = 1257, 830 females). Further, we tested for bidirectional mediation effects. We identified indirect relations between gender and spatial skills through spatial anxiety, as well as between gender and spatial anxiety through spatial skills. In the gender → spatial anxiety → spatial ability direction, spatial anxiety explained an average of 22.4% of gender differences in spatial ability. In the gender → spatial ability → spatial anxiety direction, spatial ability explained an average of 25.9% of gender differences in spatial anxiety. Broadly, these results support a strong relation between cognitive and affective factors when explaining gender differences in the spatial domain. However, the nature of this relation may be more complex than has been assumed in previous literature. On a practical level, the results of this study caution the development of interventions to address gender differences in spatial processing which focus primarily on either spatial anxiety or spatial ability until such further research can be conducted. Our results also speak to the need for future longitudinal work to determine the precise mechanisms linking cognitive and affective factors in spatial processing. 

Reasoning is a complex form of human cognition whose nature has long been debated. While a number of neurocognitive mechanisms for deductive reasoning have been offered, one of the most prominent accounts is Mental Model Theory (MMT). According to MMT, humans are able to manipulate and represent information for reasoning and problem solving by leveraging the brain’s evolved visuospatial resources. Thus, when solving deductive reasoning problems, reasoners build “mental models” of the essential pieces of information conveyed in the premises, with their relations to each other represented spatially—even when the information contained within a reasoning problem is not intrinsically spatial. Crucially, taking a spatially-based approach, such as building mental models, supports higher accuracy on deductive reasoning problems. However, no study has empirically tested whether explicitly training this mental modeling ability leads to improved deductive reasoning performance. 

A spatial cognition–based curriculum in schools improved verbal reasoning, and neural changes outpredicted tests and grades.