Scientists have identified brain networks that work together when people generate creative scientific ideas, according to a new study published in . Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and art.
Creativity is often associated with art, but scientists rely on it just as much, especially when creating new hypotheses and explanations for puzzling phenomena. Nevertheless, scientific creativity has received far less attention than artistic creativity, or general creative thinking that does not require expertise in a particular field.
Previous research has demonstrated that creative thinking generally tends to involve three major brain networks. The first is the default mode network, which helps people tap into their memory and imagination. The second is the executive control network, which helps us evaluate ideas, suppress overt reactions, and maintain goals. The third is the salience network, which helps the brain switch between different modes of thinking (i.e., the default mode network and the executive control network).
These networks are known to interact during tasks such as brainstorming unusual uses for everyday objects, but researchers were unsure whether scientific creativity uses the same or different systems.
To address this gap in the literature, a research team led by Roger E. Beatty at Penn State University scanned the brains of 47 undergraduate STEM students (28 women, 16 men, and 3 unreported; mean age 19 years).
These participants completed two tasks. In the main task, students were presented with a scientific scenario, such as an island where all the flowers are the same color, and asked to come up with a novel and scientifically plausible hypothesis to explain it. In the comparison task, participants were shown scientific texts and asked to think of synonyms for the highlighted verbs. Both tasks required generating a response, but only the hypothesis task required creative thinking.
The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to record brain activity and then applied a data-driven technique called multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) to identify clusters of brain tissue that behaved differently between the two tasks. This revealed important hubs in three networks: the default mode network (particularly the posterior cingulate cortex), the salience network (right anterior insula), and the semantic control area of the left inferior frontal gyrus.
The researchers then looked at how these hubs are connected to the rest of the brain during hypothesis generation. They found that networks communicate with each other more during creative thinking. For example, the left inferior frontal gyrus showed stronger connectivity with memory-related areas within the default network. The right anterior insula also showed increased communication with the default network region. At the same time, communication within individual networks was reduced, suggesting that networks were not operating in isolation, but rather were working together across boundaries.
“The results of this study suggest that scientific creative thinking recruits similar brain systems as (general) creative thinking and may reflect coordination between generative and evaluative cognitive processes to construct unique explanations of scientific phenomena,” Beatty et al. concluded. In other words, developing a scientific hypothesis requires both imagination and control. In other words, you need to use memory and mental simulations to guide your thinking toward your own plausible explanations.
It must be noted that this study has limitations. For example, the researchers grouped all STEM students together and did not compare participants from different subfields (e.g., chemistry and biology). Additionally, the authors noted that the study featured an unbalanced sex ratio, which is relevant given the known subtle differences in how male and female brain networks work.
Ultimately, the researchers hope these findings will pave the way for “educational neuroscience.” Understanding the brain mechanisms behind scientific creativity will allow future researchers to track whether specific teaching methods and STEM curricula are successful in strengthening these creative brain networks in students over time.
The study, “Brain networks that support scientific and creative thinking,” was authored by Roger E. Beatty, Robert A. Cortes, Hannah M. Marcille, Mariale M. Hardiman, and Adam E. Green.
