skip to main content
10.1145/3565698.3565783acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschinese-chiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Differences in cerebral cortical activation between online and offline collaborative innovation

Authors Info & Claims
Published:12 February 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

The epidemic has led to the transfer of many design classes from offline to online. 30 design students were recruited, and we compared their performance on collaborative innovation tasks in both online and offline modes. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to collect signals from the subjects’ prefrontal cortex (PFC), temporal-parietal cortex (TPJ), and premotor cortex (PMC). The results showed that the design cognitive mode of the subjects in online idea generation phase was different from that of the offline corresponding phase, and more brain areas were activated during the offline collaboration process. The overall innovation performance of the subjects in the offline collaborative innovation task was better than that of the online. And the relationship between the subjects’ cerebral cortical activation and their collaborative innovation performance was further discussed.

References

  1. Leila Alem and Weidong Huang. 2011. Developing Mobile Remote Collaboration Systems for Industrial Use: Some Design Challenges. In Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2011, Pedro Campos, Nicholas Graham, Joaquim Jorge, Nuno Nunes, Philippe Palanque and Marco Winckler (eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 442–445. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23768-3_53Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Katerina Alexiou, Theodore Zamenopoulos, and Sam Gilbert. 2011. Imaging the Designing Brain: A Neurocognitive Exploration of Design Thinking. In Design Computing and Cognition ’10, John S. Gero (ed.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 489–504. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0510-4_26Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Michela Balconi and Maria Elide Vanutelli. 2017. Interbrains cooperation: Hyperscanning and self-perception in joint actions. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 39, 6 (July 2017), 607–620. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2016.1253666Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Elise Belanger, Caroline Bartels, and Jinjuan She. 2021. Challenges and Strategies in Remote Design Collaboration During Pandemic: A Case Study in Engineering Education. In Volume 6: 33rd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (DTM), American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Virtual, Online, V006T06A025. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2021-68485Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Ji Young Cho and Moon-Heum Cho. 2014. Student perceptions and performance in online and offline collaboration in an interior design studio. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 24, 4 (November 2014), 473–491. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9265-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Artur Czeszumski, Sara Eustergerling, Anne Lang, David Menrath, Michael Gerstenberger, Susanne Schuberth, Felix Schreiber, Zadkiel Zuluaga Rendon, and Peter König. 2020. Hyperscanning: A Valid Method to Study Neural Inter-brain Underpinnings of Social Interaction. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 14, (February 2020), 39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00039Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Corinne Faure. 2004. Beyond Brainstorming: Effects of Different Group Procedures on Selection of Ideas and Satisfaction with the Process. J. Creat. Behav. 38, 1 (March 2004), 13–34. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01229.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Chris D. Frith and Uta Frith. 2006. The Neural Basis of Mentalizing. Neuron 50, 4 (May 2006), 531–534. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Katherine K. Fu, Brian Sylcott, and Kaustav Das. 2019. Using fMRI to deepen our understanding of design fixation. Des. Sci. 5, (2019), e22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.21Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Ruhong Ge, Zilin Wang, Xin Yuan, Qinbiao Li, Yeqin Gao, Heshan Liu, Zhijun Fan, and Lingguo Bu. 2021. The Effects of Two Game Interaction Modes on Cortical Activation in Subjects of Different Ages: A Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study. IEEE Access 9, (2021), 11405–11415. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3050210Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Gil Gonen-Yaacovi, Leonardo Cruz de Souza, Richard Levy, Marika Urbanski, Goulven Josse, and Emmanuelle Volle. 2013. Rostral and caudal prefrontal contribution to creativity: a meta-analysis of functional imaging data. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, (2013). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00465Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Kosa Goucher-Lambert and Christopher McComb. 2019. Using Hidden Markov Models to Uncover Underlying States in Neuroimaging Data for a Design Ideation Task. Proc. Des. Soc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des. 1, 1 (July 2019), 1873–1882. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.193Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Kosa Goucher-Lambert, Jarrod Moss, and Jonathan Cagan. 2019. A neuroimaging investigation of design ideation with and without inspirational stimuli—understanding the meaning of near and far stimuli. Des. Stud. 60, (January 2019), 1–38. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.07.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Robert Grover and Alexander Wright. 2020. National Design Studio Survey: Initial Results.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Wenjun Jia and Yong Zeng. 2021. EEG signals respond differently to idea generation, idea evolution and evaluation in a loosely controlled creativity experiment. Sci. Rep. 11, 1 (December 2021), 2119. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81655-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. J. Jiang, B. Dai, D. Peng, C. Zhu, L. Liu, and C. Lu. 2012. Neural Synchronization during Face-to-Face Communication. J. Neurosci. 32, 45 (November 2012), 16064–16069. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2926-12.2012Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson. 2002. Learning Together and Alone: Overview and Meta‐analysis. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 22, 1 (January 2002), 95–105. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/0218879020220110Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Ryan Krone. 2017. Not Just Guess Work: Tips for Observation, Brainstorming, and Prototyping. Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 20, 2 (June 2017), 94–100. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1053/j.tvir.2017.04.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Cheng-Hsuan Lan, Meng-Huei Sheng, Yu-Chiung Hsu, and Ya-Ming Shiue. 2019. Influence of Online and Face-to-face Collaboration and Learning Style on Cognitive Load and Engagement in a Health Introductory Course. In Proceedings of the third International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics 2019 - ICMHI 2019, ACM Press, Xiamen, China, 142–148. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3340037.3340069Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Sherman Y.T. Lang, John Dickinson, and Ralph O. Buchal. 2002. Cognitive factors in distributed design. Comput. Ind. 48, 1 (May 2002), 89–98. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(02)00012-XGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Longfan Liu, Yan Li, Yan Xiong, Juan Cao, and Ping Yuan. 2018. An EEG study of the relationship between design problem statements and cognitive behaviors during conceptual design. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 32, 3 (August 2018), 351–362. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060417000683Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Kelong Lu, Jing Teng, and Ning Hao. 2020. Gender of partner affects the interaction pattern during group creative idea generation. Exp. Brain Res. 238, 5 (May 2020), 1157–1168. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05799-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Kelong Lu, Hua Xue, Takayuki Nozawa, and Ning Hao. 2019. Cooperation Makes a Group be More Creative. Cereb. Cortex 29, 8 (July 2019), 3457–3470. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy215Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Naama Mayseless, Grace Hawthorne, and Allan L. Reiss. 2019. Real-life creative problem solving in teams: fNIRS based hyperscanning study. NeuroImage 203, (December 2019), 116161. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116161Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Julie Milovanovic, Mo Hu, Tripp Shealy, and John Gero. 2021. Characterization of concept generation for engineering design through temporal brain network analysis. Des. Stud. 76, (September 2021), 101044. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101044Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. P Montague. 2002. Hyperscanning: Simultaneous fMRI during Linked Social Interactions. NeuroImage 16, 4 (August 2002), 1159–1164. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1150Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Masako Okamoto, Haruka Dan, Kuniko Sakamoto, Kazuhiro Takeo, Koji Shimizu, Satoru Kohno, Ichiro Oda, Seiichiro Isobe, Tateo Suzuki, Kaoru Kohyama, and Ippeita Dan. 2004. Three-dimensional probabilistic anatomical cranio-cerebral correlation via the international 10–20 system oriented for transcranial functional brain mapping. NeuroImage 21, 1 (January 2004), 99–111. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.08.026Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Alex F. Osborn. 1953. Applied imagination. Scribner'S, Oxford, England.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jingyuan Ren, Furong Huang, Ying Zhou, Liping Zhuang, Jiahua Xu, Chuanji Gao, Shaozheng Qin, and Jing Luo. 2020. The function of the hippocampus and middle temporal gyrus in forming new associations and concepts during the processing of novelty and usefulness features in creative designs. NeuroImage 214, (July 2020), 116751. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116751Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Simone M. Ritter and Nel M. Mostert. 2018. How to facilitate a brainstorming session: The effect of idea generation techniques and of group brainstorm after individual brainstorm. Creat. Ind. J. 11, 3 (September 2018), 263–277. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2018.1523662Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Sonia Vieira, John S. Gero, Jessica Delmoral, Valentin Gattol, Carlos Fernandes, Marco Parente, and António A. Fernandes. 2020. The neurophysiological activations of mechanical engineers and industrial designers while designing and problem-solving. Des. Sci. 6, (2020), e26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.26Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Fuhua Wang, Zuhua Jiang, Xinyu Li, and Geng Li. 2021. Cognitive factors of the transfer of empirical engineering knowledge: A behavioral and fNIRS study. Adv. Eng. Inform. 47, (January 2021), 101207. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101207Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Meng-Yun Wang, Ping Luan, Juan Zhang, Yu-Tao Xiang, Haijing Niu, and Zhen Yuan. 2018. Concurrent mapping of brain activation from multiple subjects during social interaction by hyperscanning: a mini-review. Quant. Imaging Med. Surg. 8, 8 (September 2018), 819–837. DOI:https://doi.org/10.21037/qims.2018.09.07Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Xinyue Wang, Yingyao He, Kelong Lu, Chenglong Deng, Xinuo Qiao, and Ning Hao. 2019. How does the embodied metaphor affect creative thinking? NeuroImage 202, (November 2019), 116114. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116114Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Zebo Xu, Min Hu, Zi-Rong Wang, Jin Li, Xiao-Hui Hou, and Ming-Qiang Xiang. 2019. The Positive Effect of Moderate-Intensity Exercise on the Mirror Neuron System: An fNIRS Study. Front. Psychol. 10, (May 2019), 986. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00986Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Hua Xue, Kelong Lu, and Ning Hao. 2018. Cooperation makes two less-creative individuals turn into a highly-creative pair. NeuroImage 172, (May 2018), 527–537. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.02.007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Dong Yu, Shurui Wang, Fanghao Song, Yan Liu, Shiyi Zhang, Yirui Wang, Xiaojiao Xie, and Zihan Zhang. 2022. Research on user experience of the video game difficulty based on flow theory and fNIRS. Behav. Inf. Technol. (March 2022), 1–17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2043442Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Xin Yuan, Qinbiao Li, Yeqin Gao, Heshan Liu, Zhijun Fan, and Lingguo Bu. 2022. Age-related changes in brain functional networks under multisensory-guided hand movements assessed by the functional near – Infrared spectroscopy. Neurosci. Lett. 781, (June 2022), 136679. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2022.136679Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Wenfeng Zhu, Qunlin Chen, Chaoying Tang, Guikang Cao, Yuling Hou, and Jiang Qiu. 2016. Brain structure links everyday creativity to creative achievement. Brain Cogn. 103, (March 2016), 70–76. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.09.008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Differences in cerebral cortical activation between online and offline collaborative innovation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      Chinese CHI '22: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of Chinese CHI
      October 2022
      342 pages
      ISBN:9781450398695
      DOI:10.1145/3565698

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 February 2024

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate17of40submissions,43%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format