Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Measuring spontaneous processes in creativity
research
Tali R Marron1,2 and Miriam Faust1,2
Spontaneous cognitive processes, operating in combination
with controlled (executive) processes, are critical for creative
ideation. Whereas decades of research have produced
numerous validated methods for measuring controlled
processes, the development of tasks and measurement tools
that can capture spontaneous processes is still in relatively
early stages. We review the most recent advancements in
measuring spontaneous processes specifically in creative
cognition. The methods we discuss include mind-wandering-
based methods, incubation designs, brain imaging methods,
and targeted behavioral tasks — specifically tasks based on
generation of (free) associations. We point to means of refining
each approach to better capture spontaneous processes, and
suggest directions for future development.
Addresses
1
Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290002,
Israel
2
Gonda Brain Research Center, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan
5290002, Israel
Corresponding author: Marron, Tali R (talimarron@yahoo.com)
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2018, 27:64–70
This review comes from a themed issue on Creativity
Edited by Rex Jung and Hikaru Takeuuchi
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.09.009
2352-1546/ã 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Artists, scientists and other thinkers have long recognized
the role of spontaneous cognitive processes in creativity,
describing bursts of inspiration in which ideas suddenly
pop into their minds [1]. This notion is supported by a
vast stream of neurocognitive research indicating that
spontaneous processes, in combination with controlled
(executive) processes, are fundamental to the production
of creative ideas [1–6]. Such research characterizes spon-
taneous (or ‘type 1’) processes as associative in nature and
suggests that they involve rapid, mostly unconscious
retrieval of information [7] from episodic (i.e., personal
experiences) and semantic (i.e., conceptual knowledge
stores) memory [8]. Spontaneity of thought can refer to
the manner in which the thoughts arise (e.g. not-
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2019, 27:64–70
deliberately), and to the manner in which they unfold;
that is, free from constraints, flowing flexibly in a dynamic
manner (see Ref. [9] for a precise conceptualization of
spontaneous thought).
In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of crea-
tivity — and to identify interventions that enhance crea-
tive performance, a key aim of neurocognitive research in
this vein (e.g. [10])—it is crucial to isolate the individual
contributions of spontaneous versus controlled processes
in creative cognition [2,6]. Decades of research have
provided substantial insight regarding the role of con-
trolled processes in creativity and in other aspects of the
mind (e.g. [11]), relying on an expansive array of estab-
lished measurement tools (e.g. measurement of working
memory; see Ref. [1] for a review). Knowledge on spon-
taneous cognitive processes, in contrast, remains some-
what limited by the fact that the development of tools for
measuring such processes is still in relatively early stages.
This lag is partially attributable to the fact that, compared
with executive cognitive processes, spontaneous pro-
cesses are by nature more difficult to induce and to
translate into constrained quantitative measures. Addi-
tionally, the unique brain activity involved in spontane-
ous processes was identified only in 2001, after which
brain research of such processes began to gain momen-
tum; see Refs. [6,12]. Herein we review state-of-the-art
behavioral and brain-imaging-based approaches that are
used to measure spontaneous processes specifically
underlying creative cognition, and we identify avenues
for further development that might ultimately converge
to a comprehensive, fine-grained understanding of these
processes. Figure 1 presents a summary of the methods
outlined in this review.
Mind-wandering-based methods
Mind-wandering (MW) refers to an individual’s mental
state when not engaged in an external task and is
characterized by contents that are task-unrelated [13].
It can be defined as a form of spontaneous thought, in
that it lacks constraints (e.g. it is less deliberately con-
strained than goal-directed thought, and less internally
constrained than rumination) [9]. Several studies have
measured MW as a means of evaluating the amount of
variance in creative performance that can be attributed
to spontaneous thinking. This approach generally
involves measuring participants’ tendency for MW and
creative performance separately, and then correlating
the two scores.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Measuring spontaneous processes in creativity research Marron and Faust 65

Figure 1

Spontaneous Relation to creative Main means of Recommendations for

processes performance measure enhancing the capacity to
capture spontaneous
processes
Mind-Wandering Correlating MW Self-report Taking into account
(MW) measures with questionnaires, characteristics of the MW
scores on creativity experience sampling that occurred (content,
tasks. or behavioral intentionality, awareness).
measures of deficits
on non-creative tasks.

Unconscious Participants work on Different incubation Using multiple variations

processes during a target creative tasks (e.g., SART) of the incubation tasks;
incubation task, switch to an incorporating specific
incubation measurements to
activity/control, and characterize MW that
then return to the takes place during the
target task after the incubation task
incubation. Scores
on the creativity task Rest/passage of time Not advised
are compared
between the
incubation group Sleep Specifying the type of
and control group. sleep, specifically REM.

Spontaneous Correlation of Resting state Better understanding of

processes related creative functional activity and the spontaneous
to the Default performance with connectivity, processes that the DMN
Mode Network measures of DMN structural MRI. relates to, investigating
(DMN) structure, activity, sub-networks of DMN,
and connectivity. investigating areas outside
the DMN

Spontaneous Participants Applying brain imaging The creative task and the
processes related complete creative paradigms that include control task should be as
to divergent vs. tasks during brain at least 2 conditions, similar as possible,
convergent imaging and the one with a creative differing only in the extent
thinking or to relevant brain (divergent/ to which spontaneous
improvisation underpinnings are improvisational) task processes are involved.
identified. and the other with a Creating variations of the
control task. creative task and control
task to control for
potential confounds.
Using before-after
intervention designs.

Brain areas Correlating Brain imaging coupled The more the specific
critical for performance deficits with administration of cognitive processes
spontaneous on creativity tasks creative tasks necessary for each task are
processes as with the presence of known to include
defined by different types of spontaneous processes
different tasks brain lesions. the better.
(e.g., It is preferable to compare
spontaneous across multiple
associations) participants with similar
brain lesions in areas that
are known to be relevant
for creativity.

Associative Comparing Associative tasks It is preferable to use

spontaneous performance on associative tasks whose
processes (e.g., tasks that involve relevance to spontaneous
unfolding of associative processes processes has been
thoughts in to performance on validated, e.g., using brain
memory, creative tasks. imaging.
generation,
shifting between
concepts)

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

Methods used to isolate spontaneous cognitive processes involved in creative thinking.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2019, 27:64–70

66 Creativity
There are numerous behavioral methods for measuring
MW [see Ref. 6 for a review]. Specifically in creativity
research, some studies use trait self-report questionnaires
(e.g. [14,15]) such as the Daydreaming frequency sub-
scale of the Imaginal Process Inventory [16]. Another MW
measurement approach involves administering a non-
creative task as part of the experimental design (e.g.
the go-no go Sustained Attention to Response Task ;
SART; [17]) and measuring MW that occurred during the
task using retrospective questionnaires, by evaluating
response deficits on the task, or using experience sam-
pling procedures during the task, and then correlating the
frequency of MW occurrence to creative performance.
One study measured MW frequency during execution of
the creative task itself to evaluate its influence on creative
performance [18]. More recently, researchers have begun
to differentiate specific aspects of MW, such as emotion,
content, and intentionality [6], and to develop measure-
ments for each aspect. For example, Agnoli et al. [19] used
scales measuring intentional versus unintentional MW
[20] to show that the former type of MW is more benefi-
cial to creative performance than the latter. In light of the
results of their study, future creativity research relying on
MW should take into account the characteristics of the
MW elicited [6].
Incubation-based methods
The term ‘incubation’ refers to a period of time in which a
participant who faces a creative task engages in an addi-
tional activity prior to completing the task [21]. Incuba-
tion is suggested to elicit spontaneous processes that
might influence performance on the target task [1]. In
the classic laboratory paradigm for studying incubation
effects on creative performance, participants work on a
target creative task for a defined period of time, then
switch to a different activity (e.g. working memory tasks
[14,22], rest, and even sleep [e.g. [23]), and subsequently
return to the target task. These participants’ creative
performance can then be compared to the performance
of a control group that did not engage in incubation, or
that engaged in alternative incubation activities [22,24;
see Ref. 25 for a meta-analysis].
MW-based incubation paradigms
One shortcoming of the classic incubation paradigm is
that it provides little insight regarding the mental pro-
cesses that are elicited during incubation — and, in
particular, the extent to which they are spontaneous.
For example, it is possible that improvements in creative
performance observed following incubation can be attrib-
uted to ‘passive’ processes such as relaxation, forgetting,
and loosening of cognitive constraints, or to ‘active’
spontaneous processes such as activation of broad seman-
tic associates (see Ref. [1] for a detailed discussion). Yet
incubation might also elicit active controlled processes
such as suppression that affect subsequent task perfor-
mance [24].
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2019, 27:64–70
Given this concern, researchers have created variants of
the incubation task that are specifically designed to elicit
spontaneous cognitive processes (e.g. [14,26]). Most of
these tasks are aimed at encouraging MW. Baird et al. [14],
for example, gave one group a non-cognitively-demand-
ing incubation task that was designed to allow for MW (an
assumption validated by a post-task self-report), and
compared these individuals’ post-incubation improve-
ment in creative performance to that of a group that
completed a more demanding incubation task. The posi-
tive effect observed among those who engaged in the less-
demanding incubation task was attributed to spontaneous
processes that occurred during MW [14]. However, a
more recent study that used thought probing in addition
to post-task self-report questionnaires did not observe a
relationship between extent of MW during a (low-cogni-
tive-demand) incubation task and subsequent perfor-
mance in a creative task [22].
One potential factor in these discrepancies might relate to
the type and content of MW that participants engage in
(see section on MW). Leszczynski et al. [26] explored
this premise: In their incubation task (the SART), they
exposed participants to cue words associated with the
target creative task in an attempt to stimulate MW that
would relate to that task. The authors found a positive
incubation effect on creative performance when MW was
stimulated (relevant for the creative task) but did not
observe improvement following unstimulated MW.
Sleep as incubation
Sleep can be used as an incubation activity (e.g. [27]).
Notably, however, different forms of sleep have different
effects on post-incubation performance: Studies have
shown that rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep is more
strongly associated with creative performance compared
with other types of sleep (e.g. [23]). Given that REM
sleep is highly correlated with dreaming and with activity
in brain regions associated with spontaneous cognition
[28] (see the following section for discussion of these
regions), research incorporating REM-sleep-based incu-
bation seems like a fruitful direction for measuring rela-
tionships between spontaneous cognitive processes and
creativity.
Brain research
Brain research methods hold vast potential for elucidating
the role of spontaneous processes in creative thinking.
Some methods in this category seek to identify brain
regions involved in spontaneous processes, whereas
others rely on our current knowledge of the regions
involved in such processes in order to pinpoint the
occurrence of spontaneous cognition and to link it to
creativity. The Default Mode Network (DMN) is a
key brain network that has been related to spontaneous
thinking. This network is characterized by activation
during inward-directed and self-generated thought
www.sciencedirect.com
 Measuring spontaneous processes in creativity research Marron and Faust 67
[12,29,30] and has recently been recognized for its
specific involvement in spontaneous thinking, such as
in MW [5,9,31] and dreaming [32]. It is important to
note, however, that the notion that DMN activation
equals spontaneous thinking is an oversimplification, as
recent studies point to additional areas and networks
involved in spontaneous cognition [5] (e.g. in MW
[33]). Moreover, even inside the DMN there are sub-
networks that might contribute differentially to sponta-
neous cognition and creativity [5,6,9,34].
Correlation of creative performance with DMN
characteristics
One method of understanding the role of spontaneous
thought processes in creative cognition is to correlate off-
line creative performance (e.g. scores on creativity tasks
that were completed behaviorally) with DMN activity
and connectivity during the resting state [35–37], or
structural characteristics of the DMN [38–41]. These
methods rely on the premise that characteristics of an
individual’s DMN structure, activity, and connectivity
are indicative of his or her tendency to engage in sponta-
neous thought.
Brain lesion studies
Brain lesion studies can enable researchers to infer which
brain areas are relevant for certain tasks, through recog-
nizing deficiencies in performance caused by a lesion in a
specific region. This approach has recently been applied
to the study of spontaneous processes in creative cogni-
tion. Bendetowicz and colleagues [42], for example,
found that patients with damage to the DMN (specifically
the right rostromedial prefrontal cortex; PFC) had diffi-
culties with spontaneously and deliberately generating
remote associations, whereas patients with damage to
executive areas (left rostrolateral PFC) did not have
similar difficulties.
Isolating spontaneous cognitive processes in creative
tasks through brain imaging design
Brain studies can be designed to elicit specific cognitive
processes, with the goal of identifying brain regions that
are involved in these processes and that are not involved
in other (control) tasks. Given the complexity of the brain
and the involvement of numerous regions in virtually any
activity, a key challenge in designing such studies is the
need to create control tasks that are as similar as possible
to the treatment task, such that any differences in brain
activity can be attributed to the processes of interest (in
our case, spontaneous processes).
Divergent versus convergent thinking
Creative ideation is commonly conceptualized as com-
prising two main forms of cognition: divergent thinking,
the generation of multiple original ideas; and convergent
thinking, an evaluative phase in which appropriate
responses are selected (see Ref. [43] for a review).
www.sciencedirect.com
Spontaneous cognitive processes are considered to play
a role in the divergent, generative, aspects of ideation
[29]. Therefore, to investigate the brain underpinnings
of spontaneous processes, brain imaging studies contrast
conditions that include divergent versus convergent
tasks. As noted above, such tasks must be designed in
a manner that enables spontaneous processes to be iso-
lated; it is not sufficient to compare dissimilar generative
and evaluative tasks (though such comparisons can still
yield interesting insights, as in Ref. [4], for e.g.). Some
researchers approach this challenge by comparing perfor-
mance on tasks that are similar in many aspects [29], for
example naming alternative uses for common objects
(divergent) versus naming object characteristics (conver-
gent) ([3], see Ref. [44] for a meta-analysis). Yet even in
these cases differences between conditions cannot reli-
ably be attributed to spontaneous processes, as divergent
thinking includes numerous types of spontaneous and
controlled processes [1–3]. An effective solution is to
compare across multiple control conditions that enable
specific aspects of divergent thinking to be isolated (e.g.
internal versus external focus of attention [29]).
Improvisation
Improvisation is considered to be an expression of spon-
taneity in creativity, and the mechanisms of the processes
involved in improvisation have been the focus of numer-
ous brain imaging studies [45–47]. In line with the dis-
cussion above, such studies face the challenge of design-
ing appropriate improvisation tasks that yield meaningful
comparisons. In studies of melodic and lyrical improvisa-
tion, effective experimental designs include comparisons
of brain activity under improvisation in which specific
aspects were controlled (e.g. degree of freedom of impro-
visation [45]; emotional intent [46]) to brain activity while
performing pre-learned musical passages [45–47] (see
Ref. [48] for a review). A study of improvisation in visual
creativity incorporated an excellent design based on an
fMRI paradigm that was administered before and after an
intervention aimed at enhancing improvisation and spon-
taneity in creation, or a (well-designed) control interven-
tion [10].
Association-based tasks
Several researchers have attempted to design tasks that
capture spontaneous — primarily associative [7] — pro-
cesses and to examine the extent to which performance
on such tasks can explain variance in performance on
creative tasks [2,49] (see Ref. [43] for a review). A similar
premise of correlating performance on a specific type of
task with performance on a different, creative task has
been adopted in creativity research incorporating MW
(see the ‘Mind-Wandering-Based Methods’ section for
further detail), as well as in extensive research on the role
of controlled executive processes in performance on
creative tasks (e.g. [2,11]). Yet, the development of tasks
that can reliably isolate spontaneous processes has proven
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2019, 27:64–70
68 Creativity
to be highly challenging thus far: Nuances in task struc-
ture and instructions can have significant effects on the
extent of involvement of controlled processes in task
performance [43]. For example, an instruction to ‘think
creatively’ on an associative task might trigger controlled
processes such as inhibition of mundane or automatic
responses and overcoming cognitive constraints [50].
Marron et al. [51] recently used neurocognitive methods
to establish a chain free association (FA) task [49] as a task
that elicits spontaneous cognitive processes. Chain FA
involves verbalizing the train of thought in single words in
response to a cue word, each word associating to the
previous word in the form of a chain. The authors
designed the task with the explicit goal of encouraging
spontaneous thought (e.g. instructions to participants
emphasized the minimization of constraints), as well as
measuring different types of spontaneous processes (e.g.
generative ability (fluency); tendency to switch between
different semantic categories (flexibility)). The authors
validated this task using an fMRI paradigm that included
relevant controls, in line with the considerations outlined
in the ‘Brain Research’ section. Specifically, their control
conditions incorporated associative tasks that involved
more restriction than chain FA and thus were less likely to
elicit spontaneous processes. The validation process
indeed revealed higher involvement of the DMN in chain
FA in general (as compared with control condition) and in
chains with higher scores on the spontaneous character-
istics. Finally, the authors showed that measurements of
performance on chain FA explained a significant amount
of variance in performance on creative tasks (specifically
in fluency and originality in divergent thinking tasks, as
well as recognition of novel metaphors) [51].
Conclusions and future directions
Despite the undeniable importance of spontaneous pro-
cesses for creative cognition, the capacity to measure
these processes and their relation to creative performance
has yet to be sufficiently realized. For each method out-
lined in this review, we have identified conditions that
that can improve its effectiveness in research of sponta-
neous processes in creative cognition. MW and MW-
based incubation paradigms, for example, should take
MW characteristics (e.g. intentionality) into account.
Sleep-based incubation should focus on REM sleep
rather than other types of sleep. Brain research must
incorporate adequate and consistent control conditions,
in addition to multiple variations of a focal task (e.g.
[29]). We believe that behavioral tasks that isolate
spontaneous processes, such as chain FA, validated using
neurocognitive methods, hold substantial promise for
future research in this vein, particularly given the ease
of administering such tasks and the low costs involved (as
compared with brain imaging, for instance) [51]. The
basic FA task discussed in the previous section can be
expanded and refined in numerous ways; one idea is to
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2019, 27:64–70
stimulate associations related to a target creative task,
similarly to what was done in [26].
Additional methods that are currently used to measure
spontaneous processes in other domains might be rele-
vant for the research of creativity. Such methods include
using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to
elicit spontaneous processes such as MW [33], or trigger-
ing of psychedelic states (see Ref. [52] for a review). We
further note that research has begun to accumulate on the
role of certain neurotransmitters (e.g. dopamine) in crea-
tive ideation [53,54] (see Ref. [55] for a review). It would
be of interest to explore whether neurotransmitters
known to be relevant for spontaneous processes (such
as serotonin [52]) are also involved in creativity.
Conflict of interest statement
Nothing declared.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. Benedek M, Jauk E: Spontaneous and controlled processes in
creative cognition. In The Oxford Handbook of Spontaneous
Thought: Mind-Wandering, Creativity, and Dreaming. Edited by
Christoff K, Fox KCR. Oxford University Press; 2018:285-298.
2. Beaty RE, Silvia PJ, Nusbaum EC, Jauk E, Benedek M: The roles
of associative and executive processes in creative cognition.
Mem Cogn 2014, 42:1186-1197.
3. Beaty RE, Benedek M, Barry Kaufman S, Silvia PJ: Default and
executive network coupling supports creative idea
production. Sci Rep 2015, 5:10964.
4. Ellamil M, Dobson C, Beeman M, Christoff K: Evaluative and
generative modes of thought during the creative process.
Neuroimage 2012, 59:1783-1794.
5. Fox KCR, Spreng RN, Ellamil M, Andrews-Hanna JR, Christoff K:
The wandering brain: meta-analysis of functional
neuroimaging studies of mind-wandering and related
spontaneous thought processes. Neuroimage 2015, 111:611-
621.
6. Andrews-Hanna JR, Irving ZC, Fox KCR, Spreng RN, Christoff K:
The neuroscience of spontaneous thought: an evolving
interdisciplinary field. In The Oxford Handbook of Spontaneous
Thought: Mind-Wandering, Creativity, and Dreaming. Edited by
Christoff K, Fox KCR. Oxford University Press; 2018:143-164.
7. Sowden PT, Pringle A, Gabora L: The shifting sands of creative
thinking: connections to dual-process theory. Think Reason
2015, 21:40-60.
8. Madore KP, Addis DR, Schacter DL: Creativity and memory.
Psychol Sci 2015, 26:1461-1468.
9. Christoff K, Irving ZC, Fox KCR, Spreng RN, Andrews-Hanna JR:

Mind-wandering as spontaneous thought: a dynamic
framework. Nat Rev Neurosci 2016, 17:718-731.
Past research on spontaneous thought, and specifically on mind-wan-
dering, has loosely defined these types of thoughts as ‘task un-related
thoughts’, leaving much room for ambiguity and misinterpretations of
empirical results. In this article the authors created a clear and precise
framework for a better understanding of the dynamics of different types of
spontaneous thought, and conceptualized mind-wandering as a type of
spontaneous thought according to those dynamics.
10. Saggar M, Quintin EM, Bott NT, Kienitz E, Chien YH, DW-C Hong,
 Liu N, Royalty A, Hawthorne G, Reiss AL: Changes in brain
www.sciencedirect.com
 Measuring spontaneous processes in creativity research Marron and Faust 69
activation associated with spontaneous improvization and
figural creativity after design-thinking-based training: a
longitudinal fMRI study. Cereb Cortex 2017, 27:3542-3552.
This study applied an exceptional design for isolating spontaneous
processes in creative cognition. The design included an fMRI scan of
spontaneous improvisation before vs. after an intervention focused on
enhancing improvisational abilities or a control intervention. The fMRI
paradigm included a ‘creative’ condition of word-drawing, and an ade-
quate control condition of similar motor activation without the improvisa-
tional aspect. The use of within-participant comparison before vs. after an
intervention provides a reliable means of explaining the variance of the
difference between the 2 fMRI conditions, and the specific nature of the
intervention enables the changes to be attributed to spontaneous
processes.
11. Benedek M, Jauk E, Sommer M, Arendasy M, Neubauer AC:
Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: the common and
differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence
and creativity. Intelligence 2014, 46:73-83.
12. Raichle ME, MacLeod AM, Snyder AZ, Powers WJ, Gusnard DA,
Shulman GL: A default mode of brain function. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A 2001, 98:676-682.
13. Gruberger M, Ben-Simon E, Levkovitz Y, Zangen A, Hendler T:
Towards a neuroscience of mind-wandering. Front Hum
Neurosci 2011, 5:56.
14. Baird B, Smallwood J, Mrazek MD, Kam JWY, Franklin MS,
Schooler JW: Inspired by distraction: mind wandering
facilitates creative incubation. Psychol Sci 2012, 23:1117-1122.
15. Zedelius CM, Schooler JW: Mind wandering “Ahas” versus
mindful reasoning: alternative routes to creative solutions.
Front Psychol 2015, 6:834.
16. Singer JL, Antrobus JS: Imaginal Process Inventory. 1970.
17. Robertson IH, Manly T, Andrade J, Baddeley BT, Yiend J: “Oops!”:
performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in
traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia
1997, 35:747-758.
18. Hao N, Wu M, Runco MA, Pina J: More mind wandering, fewer
original ideas: be not distracted during creative idea
generation. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2015, 161:110-116.
19. Agnoli S, Vanucci M, Pelagatti C, Emanuele G, Agnoli S,
Corazza GE: Exploring the link between mind wandering,
mindfulness, and creativity : a multidimensional approach.
Creat Res J 2018, 30:41-53.
20. Carriere JSA, Seli P, Smilek D: Wandering in both mind and
body: individual differences in mind wandering and inattention
predict fidgeting. Can J Exp Psychol 2013, 67:19-31.
21. Ritter SM, Dijksterhuis A: Creativity-the unconscious
foundations of the incubation period. Front Hum Neurosci 2014,
8:215.
22. Smeekens BA, Kane MJ: Working memory capacity, mind
wandering, and creative cognition: an individual-differences
investigation into the benefits of controlled versus
spontaneous thought. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 2016, 10:389-
415.
23. Cai DJ, Mednick SA, Harrison EM, Kanady JC, Mednick SC: REM,
not incubation, improves creativity by priming associative
networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009, 106:10130-10134.
24. Gilhooly KJ, Georgiou GJ, Sirota M, Paphiti-Galeano A:
Incubation and suppression processes in creative problem
solving. Think Reason 2015, 21:130-147.
25. Sio UN, Ormerod TC: Does incubation enhance problem
solving? A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 2009, 135:94-120.
26. Leszczynski M, Chaieb L, Reber TP, Derner M, Axmacher N, Fell J:
 Mind wandering simultaneously prolongs reactions and
promotes creative incubation. Sci Rep 2017, 7:10197.
This study used the most advanced behavioral methods in both incuba-
tion and mind-wandering (MW) research to account for the effect of MW
during incubation on creativity. The finding that only MW that is stimulated
to be related to the target creative task is beneficial for creative problem
solving opens a new door for future research on this subject, and can
www.sciencedirect.com
explain discrepancies from past research regarding the beneficial effect
of MW during incubation on creativity.
27. Sio UN, Monaghan P, Ormerod TC: Sleep on it, but only if it is
difficult: Effects of sleep on problem solving. Mem Cogn 2013,
41:159-166.
28. Fox KCR, Girn M: Neural correlates of self-generated imagery
and cognition throughout the sleep cycle. In The Oxford
Handbook of Spontaneous Thought: Mind-Wandering, Creativity,
and Dreaming. Edited by Christoff K, Fox KCR. Oxford University
Press; 2018:371-384.
29. Benedek M, Jauk E, Beaty RE, Fink A, Koschutnig K,
 Neubauer AC: Brain mechanisms associated with internally
directed attention and self-generated thought. Sci Rep 2016,
6:22959.
This study is an example of the type of research necessary for under-
standing spontaneous processes and their brain underpinnings. The
authors created an fMRI paradigm with variations among conditions that
enabled them to make inferences regarding the type of cognitive pro-
cesses that were in use (i.e., internally vs. externally directed attention and
levels of self generated thought- divergent vs. convergent).
30. Axelrod V, Rees G, Bar M: The default network and the
combination of cognitive processes that mediate self-
generated thought. Nat Hum Behav 2017, 1:896-910.
31. Andrews-Hanna JR, Reidler JS, Huang C, Buckner RL: Evidence
for the default network’s role in spontaneous cognition. J
Neurophysiol 2010, 104:322-335.
32. Domhoff GW, Fox KCR: Dreaming and the default network: a
review, synthesis, and counterintuitive research proposal.
Conscious Cogn 2015, 33:342-353.
33. Axelrod V, Rees G, Lavidor M, Bar M: Increasing propensity to
mind-wander with transcranial direct current stimulation. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015, 112:3314-3319.
34. Andrews-Hanna JR, Reidler JS, Sepulcre J, Poulin R, Buckner RL:
Functional-anatomic fractionation of the brain’s default
network. Neuron 2010, 65:550-562.
35. Takeuchi H, Taki Y, Hashizume H, Sassa Y, Nagase T, Nouchi R,
Kawashima R: The association between resting functional
connectivity and creativity. Cereb Cortex 2012, 22:2921-2929.
36. Beaty RE, Benedek M, Wilkins RW, Jauk E, Fink A, Silvia PJ,
Hodges DA, Koschutnig K, Neubauer AC: Creativity and the
default network: a functional connectivity analysis of the
creative brain at rest. Neuropsychologia 2014, 64:92-98.
37. Sun J, Liu Z, Rolls ET, Chen Q, Yao Y, Yang W, Wei D, Zhang Q,
Zhang J, Feng J et al.: Verbal creativity correlates with the
temporal variability of brain networks during the resting state.
Cereb Cortex 2018:1-12 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy010.
38. Jung RE, Mead BS, Carrasco J, Flores RA: The structure of
creative cognition in the human brain. Front Hum Neurosci
2013, 7:330.
39. Jauk E, Neubauer AC, Dunst B, Fink A, Benedek M: Gray matter
correlates of creative potential: a latent variable voxel-based
morphometry study. Neuroimage 2015, 111:312-320.
40. Chen Q-L, Xu T, Yang W-J, Li Y-D, Sun J-Z, Wang K-C, Beaty RE,
Zhang Q-L, Zuo X-N, Qiu J: Individual differences in verbal
creative thinking are reflected in the precuneus.
Neuropsychologia 2015, 75:441-449.
41. Jung RE, Flores RA, Hunter D: A new measure of imagination
ability: anatomical brain imaging correlates. Front Psychol
2016, 7:496.
42. Bendetowicz D, Urbanski M, Garcin B, Foulon C, Levy R,
 Bréchemier ML, Rosso C, De Schotten MT, Volle E: Two critical
brain networks for generation and combination of remote
associations. Brain 2018, 141:217-233.
This study entails an innovative approach to the research of spontaneous
processes through the study of brain lesions. The authors recruited a
significant sample of participants with similar brain lesions (either lateral
prefrontal or medial prefrontal, suggesting a deficit in either the executive
or default mode networks respectively). They chose tasks that are highly
relevant for the study of creativity in general (generating remote associa-
tions vs. combining associations) and specifically for the study of
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2019, 27:64–70
70 Creativity
spontaneous processes (spontaneous associations). Thus, their results
provide a finer understanding of the brain areas necessary for these
processes.
43. Marron TR, Faust M: Free association, divergent thinking and
creativity : cognitive and neural perspectives. In The
Cambridge Handbook of the Neuroscience of Creativity. Edited by
Jung RE, Vartanian O. Cambridge University Press; 2018:261-280.
44. Wu X, Yang W, Tong D, Sun J, Chen Q, Wei D, Zhang Q, Zhang M,
Qiu J: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on divergent
thinking using activation likelihood estimation. Hum Brain
Mapp 2015, 36:2703-2718.
45. Limb CJ, Braun AR: Neural substrates of spontaneous musical
performance: an fMRI study of jazz improvisation. PLoS One
2008, 3:e1679.
46. Mcpherson MJ, Barrett FS, Lopez-Gonzalez M, Jiradejvong P,
Limb CJ: emotional intent modulates the neural substrates of
creativity: an fMRI study of emotionally targeted improvisation
in jazz musicians. Sci Rep 2016, 6:18460.
47. Liu S, Chow HM, Xu Y, Erkkinen MG, Swett KE, Eagle MW, Rizik-
Baer DA, Braun AR: Neural correlates of lyrical improvisation:
an FMRI study of freestyle rap. Sci Rep 2012, 2:834.
48. Beaty RE: The neuroscience of musical improvisation. Neurosci
Biobehav Rev 2015, 51:108-117.
49. Benedek M, Könen T, Neubauer AC: Associative abilities
underlying creativity. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 2012, 6:273-
281.
50. Beaty RE, Christensen AP, Benedek M, Silvia PJ, Schacter DL:
Creative constraints: brain activity and network dynamics
underlying semantic interference during idea production.
Neuroimage 2017, 148:189-196.
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2019, 27:64–70
51. Marron TR, Lerner Y, Berant E, Kinreich S, Shapira-Lichter I,
 Hendler T, Faust M: Chain free association, creativity, and the
default mode network. Neuropsychologia 2018 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.018.
In this study the authors used an exhaustive behavioral-fMRI design to
establish the chain free association task as a relevant task for isolating
spontaneous processes in general, and specifically for measuring differ-
ent aspects of spontaneous thought (e.g., spontaneous generation of
associations, ability to spontaneously shift between remote aspects of
memory). They further confirmed that this task is relevant for the research
of spontaneous processes associated with creative cognition. This task
has the potential to be of substantial practical value, given that it is fMRI-
compatible, behaviorally applicable, and straightforward to administer.
52. Fox KCR, Girn M, Parro CC, Christoff K: Functional
neuroimaging of psychedelic experience: an overview of
psychological and neural effects and their relevance to
research on creativity, daydreaming, and dreaming. In The
Cambridge Handbook of the Neuroscience of Creativity. Edited by
Jung RE, Vartanian O. Cambridge University Press; 2018:92-113.
53. Takeuchi H, Taki Y, Sekiguchi A, Hashizume H, Nouchi R, Sassa Y,
Kotozaki Y, Miyauchi CM, Yokoyama R, Iizuka K et al.: Mean
diffusivity of globus pallidus associated with verbal creativity
measured by divergent thinking and creativity-related
temperaments in young healthy adults. Hum Brain Mapp 2015,
36:1808-1827.
54. Takeuchi H, Taki Y, Sassa Y, Hashizume H, Sekiguchi A,
Fukushima A, Kawashima R: Regional gray matter volume of
dopaminergic system associate with creativity: evidence from
voxel-based morphometry. Neuroimage 2010, 51:578-585.
55. Boot N, Baas M, van Gaal S, Cools R, De Dreu CKW: Creative
cognition and dopaminergic modulation of fronto-striatal
networks: integrative review and research agenda. Neurosci
Biobehav Rev 2017, 78:13-23.
www.sciencedirect.com