Neuroscience Letters 615 (2016) 98101

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Neuroscience Letters
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/neulet

Research paper

Visualizer cognitive style enhances visual creativity

Massimiliano Palmiero a,b, , Raffaella Nori c , Laura Piccardi a,b
a

Neuropsychology Unit, I.R.C.C.S. Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy

Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of LAquila, Italy
c
Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Italy
b

h i g h l i g h t s
The role of the cognitive style (Visualization/Verbalization) on visual creativity was explored.
The Visualization/Verbalization questionnaire (VVQ) and the creative synthesis task were used.
The VVQ score predicted originality of inventions.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 24 November 2015
Received in revised form 15 January 2016
Accepted 19 January 2016
Available online 22 January 2016
Keywords:
Spatial and Object Imagery
Verbal processing
Neuroimaging
Motor-planning

a b s t r a c t
In the last two decades, interest towards creativity has increased signicantly since it was recognized as
a skill and as a cognitive reserve and is now always more frequently used in ageing training. Here, the
relationships between visual creativity and VisualizationVerbalization cognitive style were investigated.
Fifty college students were administered the Creative Synthesis Task aimed at measuring the ability to
construct creative objects and the VisualizationVerbalization Questionnaire (VVQ) aimed at measuring
the attitude to preferentially use either imagery or verbal strategy while processing information. Analyses
showed that only the originality score of inventions was positively predicted by the VVQ score: higher
VVQ score (indicating the preference to use imagery) predicted originality of inventions. These results
showed that the visualization strategy is involved especially in the originality dimension of creative
objects production. In light of neuroimaging results, the possibility that different strategies, such those
that involve motor processes, affect visual creativity is also discussed.
2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Creativity is a multifaceted phenomenon that operates on stored
knowledge in order to produce original and appropriate ideas [1].
It plays a key role in a wide range of domains [2], from science and
art production to everyday activities. Recently, creativity has also
been suggested as a proxy indicator of the brain reserve [3] and
cognitive reserve hypothesis [4], leading to the idea that it can be
involved in active aging [5,6] as well as in stimulating pathological
aging, such as dementia [7,8], or psychiatric disorders [9]. Coffey
et al. [10] suggested that creativity rather than initial intelligence
or level of education may be the pivotal protective factor in the case
of cognitive decline.
Thus, it is not surprising that the evolution of the human brain
has been shaped by bio-social pressures toward creativity [11].

Corresponding author at: Department of Life, Health, and Environmental Sciences, University of LAquila, Piazzale Salvatore Tommasi 1, 67010, LAquila.
E-mail address: massimiliano.palmiero@univaq.it (M. Palmiero).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2016.01.032
0304-3940/ 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

However, neuroimaging studies failed to nd out where and how

creativity arises in the brain, as well as showing contradictory
results [1214]. Recent meta-analyses of neuroimaging data claried that verbal and non-verbal creativity are supported by several
frontal and parieto-temporal regions [2] on the one hand, as well
as by distinct domain-oriented areas [15,2] on the other hand.
In this direction, different studies showed that creativity is also
domain-specic at both the behavioral [1618] and neuroanatomical levels [15]. and that general creativity has a causal effect on
specic creativity [19]. In particular, Palmiero et al. [17] revealed
that visual creativity is more domain- and task-specic than verbal creativity. This means that the investigation of visual creativity
should involve specic approaches and tasks.
In these last decades, the creative cognition approach, which
relies on the Geneplore Model [1,20]. provided a theoretical and
experimental foundation to explore the relationship between
visual mental imagery and visual creativity [21,22,17,2325].
According to the Geneplore Model, the creative process requires
generative and explorative phases. This process is well encom-

M. Palmiero et al. / Neuroscience Letters 615 (2016) 98101

passed in the Creative Synthesis Task [22]: during the generative

phase a pre-inventive structure is formed by mentally assembling
different visual stimuli (e.g., cube, cone and bracket) whereas during the exploratory phase the pre-inventive structure is interpreted
in meaningful ways, such as the meaningless visual structure
becoming an invention. Such a creative process is denitively visual
in nature, but can also involve conceptual or verbal processing [20].
Recently, Aziz-Zadeh et al. [26] revealed that left hemisphere activities were present while participants were engaged in the creative
synthesis of visual elements, although the visuo-spatial processing
required by this task should involve the right hemisphere.
Previous studies explored the relationship between visual creativity and visual mental imagery abilities using the Creative
Synthesis Task e.g., [17,23,25] but the extent to which visual
creativity relies on the attitude to preferentially use imagery (Visualizers) or verbal and analytical strategies (Verbalizers) while
acquiring and processing information has never been investigated.
The VisualizationVerbalization cognitive style was rstly proposed by Bartlett [27]. Paivio [28] and Richardson [29]. Behavioral
evidence shows that these cognitive styles are related to specic
cognitive abilities [30,31]. Recently, using the Richardsons [29]
VisualizersVerbalizers Questionnaire (VVQ), Kraemer et al [32]
also demonstrated that Visualizer and Verbalizer cognitive styles
rely on different patterns of activity in visual modality-specic
brain areas: the right fusiform gyrus and the left Supramarginal
Gyrus, respectively.
Therefore, assuming that visual creativity as operationalized by
means of the creative cognition approach is mostly domain- and
task-specic, the issue of whether or not the ability to construct
inventions relies on the cognitive style of Visualization rather than
Verbalization was faced in the present study. The score obtained at
the VVQ was used as a predictor on the originality and practicality
scores of inventions.
2. Method
Participants
Fifty college students from the Department of Life, Health
and Environmental Sciences, University of LAquila, Italy, volunteered for this study. This group consisted of 25 women
(mean age = 20.64 1.32age range = 1924) and 25 men (mean
age = 23.4 4.20age range = 1931). All participants were
healthy, without any neurological and/or psychiatric disorders.
Also, no problem with alcohol or drug addiction was reported.
Everyone signed the written consent form. The ethical principles
of human experimentation stated in the Declaration of Helsinki
were respected. The study was approved by the Institutional
Review Board of the Department of Life, Health and Environmental
Science, University of LAquila.
Material and procedure
The materials consisted of a pre-experiment anamnesis questionnaire, which included questions about the students age,
gender, addictions and general state of health, the Creative Synthesis Task [22] and the VisualizerVerbalizer Questionnaire [29].
The experiment lasted approximately 45 minutes. The Creative
Synthesis Task and the VisualizerVerbalizer Questionnaire were
administered randomly to avoid learning effects due to the tasks
presentation order.
The Creative Synthesis Task [22] was aimed at measuring the
ability to create objects belonging to specic categories. Six triads
of components and six categories were used: (1) rectangular block,
dipyramid, horn (furniture); (2) pot, cross, sphere (transportation);

99

(3) rhombus, handle, ring (tools); (4) cube, bracket, cone (sport
goods); (5) strip, trapezoid, cylinder (weapons); (6) board, rhomboid, tube (toys). In order to reduce random errors and increase
the inter-rater reliability variation, the same combinations of stimuli and categories were presented across participants [33]. Firstly, a
practical example was presented to participants to let them familiarize themselves with the task. For each triad, names of stimuli
were written in the upper part of a sheet of paper, and stimuli were
drawn below. Participants were given 15 s to memorize the stimuli,
and were then allowed to think for 2 min of their pre-inventive form
(potential useful object) and make a sketch as they generated it. Participants were allowed to apply transformations to components in
position, rotation, and size, but not in their general structure, and
subsequently sketch it on the sheet of paper. Then, participants
were presented with a category name for each of the pre-inventive
forms and were instructed to think of their objects as an invention within the category. Participants were given up to 1 min. They
were also instructed to describe the functioning of the invention
and to write its name. This task was scored using Amabiles [34]
Consensual Assessment Technique. Two independent and anonymous referees, one female and one male (both 23 years old), were
instructed to evaluate the inventions along a 5 points scale. Inventions were evaluated in terms of originality, dened as a form
being new and not derived from something else, and practicality,
dened as an invention involving an actual use in a specic context,
rather than a hypothetical use. The inter-rater correlations (intraclass correlation coefcientabsolute agreement) were signicant
for both criteria: originality ( = .574, p < .005) and practicality
( = .511, p < .05). For each criteria described, only the average of
the ratings was taken as the nal score.
The VerbalizerVisualizer Questionnaire (VVQ; [29]) was aimed
at measuring the participants preference for using imagery (Visualizers) or verbal-logical strategies (Verbalizers) when solving
problems. Participants were instructed to choose a true/false
response to 15 questions describing habitual methods of thinking.
The maximum score was 15. Higher VVQ scores indicated a higher
degree of imagery ability.
3. Results
The regression analysis carried out with the originality score
of inventions as dependent variable (M = 1.8; SD = .41) and the
VVQ score as independent variable (M = 9.06; SD = 2.05) revealed
that the VVQ score signicantly predicted originality of inventions
[F(1;48) = 5.39 p = .02; = .32; t = 2.32] explaining 10% of variance
(R2 = .10; Adjusted R2 = .08). Specically, the higher the VVQ score
is, the higher the score of the inventions is. The regression analysis
carried out with the practicality score of inventions as dependent
variable (M = 2.2; SD = .36) and the VVQ score as independent variable was not signicant [F(1;48) = 2.81 p = .1]. Yet, coefcients
were tested for signicant difference using Steigers [35] formula.1
The result conrmed no difference between the rst and the second
coefcient (z-score = .75; 2-tail p = .45).
4. Discussion
The present study was aimed at clarifying the relationships between the ability to construct creative objects and the
VisualizationVerbalization cognitive style. The Creative Synthesis
Task was used to measure the ability to construct objects in terms of
originality and practicality according to a specic conceptual cat-

1
Normally Steigers formula applies to correlation coefcients. However, given
that regression analysis with one predictor is simply the same as calculating the
correlation ( = r), Steigers formula was opportunely applied to coefcients.

100

M. Palmiero et al. / Neuroscience Letters 615 (2016) 98101

egory. Assuming that the visual creative process as measured by

the Creative Synthesis Task encompasses a strong visual imagery
component, it was expected that the Visualization cognitive style
would better predict originality and practicality scores of invention
than the Verbalization cognitive style.
Results showed that the originality score of inventions was
positively predicted by the VisualizersVerbalizers Questionnaire
(VVQ): higher scores at the VVQ (indicating higher ability to use
images) were associated with higher scores of originality. In other
words, the originality score of inventions seems to be supported
by the attitude to preferentially use imagery rather than verbal
or analytical strategies. This is not surprising, given that the creative process supported by the Creative Synthesis Task includes a
strong imagery component: rstly, in order to form a pre-inventive
structure, the subject has to mentally perform a mental synthesis,
and different visual operations on the basic stimuli, such as size
adjustment, mental rotation and embedding. Secondly, the subject
has to visualize the object while consciously considering different interpretive possibilities (for example, comparing the creative
object produced to objects already existing). Interestingly, Kraemer
et al. [32] revealed that the right fusiform gyrus was found activated in Visualizers when reading words. It is noteworthy that this
region was found to be correlated with the visual imagery of object
features [3639]. supporting the idea that Visualizers generated
mental images of the visual objects/stimuli which are semantically or visually encoded, facilitating the visual creative process
at least in terms of originality. In addition, although the practicality score of inventions was not signicantly predicted by the
VisualizationVerbalization cognitive style, it must be noted that
no difference was found between the two coefcients, leading to
the assumption that the practicality score could also be positively
predicted by the VVQ score. Of course, more study is necessary to
conrm this assumption.
However, beyond these results, one should also consider the
possibility that visual creativity might be predicted by different
cognitive strategies. Recently, Aziz-Zadeh et al. [26] revealed left
hemisphere activations even in the Creative Synthesis Task, beyond
the unquestionable role of the right hemisphere, which is surely
involved in the visuo-spatial processing. Authors suggested that
creative processing also recruits the hemisphere that is less dominant for that task, highlighting a pattern of activation that is not
only important for visual creativity but for creativity in various
domains. Indeed, although the Creative Synthesis Task is visual in
nature, non-visual processes, such as memory retrieval [40] verbal or conceptual combinations [41]. attribute nding, conceptual
interpretation, functional inference, contextual shifting, hypothesis testing and searching for limitations [1,20] are also important
in yielding left hemisphere activations. In this direction, different
dimensions of visual creativity, such as practicality, can be supported by strategies that rely on motor processes. Indeed, while
interpreting pre-inventive forms in meaningful ways, participants
might evoke motor-planning, imaging actions to be performed or
mental rotations in order to nd the practical use of inventions in
specic contexts. This explanation is supported by neuroimaging
studies, revealing that visual creativity activates regions involved
in motor-planning [15,26]. Of course, more study is necessary to
better explore this view.
Taken together, these results show that the ability to create
objects is affected by the visualization strategy. In conclusion, given
that the visual creative process is extremely complex, involving different processes, such as visual, spatial, conceptual and, according
to neuroimaging studies, even motor processes, the role of different strategies and abilities should be claried at both the behavioral
and neural levels. In particular, assuming that visual imagery is not
a unitary construct, but rather involves object and spatial imagery
processes [42], future studies are necessary to understand the

extent to which objects and spatial imagery strategies impact the

ability to construct creative objects.
Conict of interest
None
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Dr. John Sandell for his English
proofreading, and Professor Bernhard Hommel for his precious
comments. This research was supported by Neuropsychology Unit,
I.R.C.C.S. Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy, and by the Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of
LAquila, Italy.
References
[1] R.A. Finke, T.M. Ward, S.M. Smith, Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and
Applications, MIT Press Cambridge, MA, 1992.
[2] G. Gonen-Yaacovi, L.C. deSouza, R. Levy, M. Urbanski, G. Josse, E. Volle, Rostral
and caudal prefrontal contribution to creativity: a meta-analysis of functional
imaging data, Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7 (2013) 465.
[3] H. Christensen, K.J. Anstey, R.A. Parslow, J. Maller, A. Mackinnon, P. Sachdev,
The brain reserve hypothesis, brain atrophy and aging, Gerontology 53 (2007)
8295.
[4] M. Palmiero, D. Di Giacomo, D. Passaume, Can creativity predict cognitive
reserve? J. Creat. Behav. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jocb.62 (in press).
[5] M. Palmiero, The effects of age on divergent thinking and creative objects
production: a cross-sectional study, High Abil. Stud. 26 (2015) 93104.
[6] M. Palmiero, D. Di Giacomo, D. Passaume, Divergent thinking and
age-related changes, Creat. Res. J. 26 (2014) 456460.
[7] B.T. Hannemann, Creativity with dementia patients, Gerontology 52 (2006)
5965.
[8] M. Palmiero, D. Di Giacomo, D. Passaume, Creativity and dementia: a review,
Cognit. Process. 13 (2012) 193209.
[9] G. Murray, S.L. Johnson, The clinical signicance of creatitivy in bipolar
disorder, Clin. Psychol. Rev. 30 (2010) 721732.
[10] C.E. Coffey, J.A. Saxton, G. Ratcliff, R.N. Bryan, J.F. Lucke, Relation of education
to brain size in normal aging: implications for the reserve hypothesis,
Neurology 53 (1999) 189196.
[11] D.W. Zaidel, Creativity, brain, and art: biological and neurological
considerations, Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8 (2014) 389.
[12] R. Arden, R.S. Chavez, R. Grazioplene, R.E. Jung, Neuroimaging creativity: a
psy-chometric view, Behav. Brain Res. 214 (2010) 143156.
[13] A. Dietrich, R. Kanso, A review of EEG ERP, and neuroimaging studies of
creativity and insight, Psychol. Bull. 136 (2010) 822848.
[14] K.M. Mihov, M. Denzler, J. Frster, Hemispheric specialization and creative
thinking: a meta-analytic review of lateralization of creativity, Brain Cogn. 72
(2010) 442448.
[15] M. Boccia, L. Piccardi, L. Palermo, R. Nori, M. Palmiero, Where do bright ideas
occur in our brain? Meta-analytic evidence from neuroimaging studies of
domain-specic creativity, Front. Psychol. 6 (2015) 1195.
[16] J.C. Kaufman, J. Baer, Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2005.
[17] M. Palmiero, C. Nakatani, D. Raver, M. Olivetti Belardinelli, C. van Leeuwen,
Abilities within and across visual and verbal domains: how specic is their
inuence on creativity? Creat. Res. J. 22 (2010) 369377.
[18] J.A. Plucker, R.A. Beghetto, Why creativity is domain-general, why it looks
domain-specic, and why the distinction does not matter, in: R.J. Sternberg,
E.L. Grigorenk, J.L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From Potential to Realization,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2004, pp. 153167.
[19] E. Hong, R.M. Milgram, Creative thinking ability: domain generality and
specicity, Creat. Res. J. 22 (2010) 272287.
[20] R.A. Finke, Imagery creativity, and emergent structure, Conscious. Cogn. 5
(1996) 381393.
[21] R.E. Anderson, T. Helstrup, Visual discovery in mind and on paper, Mem. Cogn.
21 (1993) 283293.
[22] R.A. Finke, Creative Imagery: Discoveries and Inventions in Visualization,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1990.
[23] M. Palmiero, V. Cardi, M. Olivetti Belardinelli, The role of vividness of visual
mental imagery on different dimensions of creativity, Creat. Res. J. 23 (2011)
372375.
[24] T.B. Ward, Structured imagination: the role of category structure in exemplar
generation, Cogn. Psychol. 27 (1994) 140.
[25] M. Palmiero, R. Nori, V. Aloisi, M. Ferrara, L. Piccardi, Domain-specicity of
creativity: a study on the relationships between visual creativity and visual
mental imagery, Front. Psychol. 6 (2015) 1870.
[26] L. Aziz-Zadeh, S.L. Liew, F. Dandekar, Exploring the neural correlations of
visual creativity, Soc. Cogn. Affect Neurosci. 8 (2013) 475480.

M. Palmiero et al. / Neuroscience Letters 615 (2016) 98101

[27] F.C. Bartlett, Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1932.
[28] A. Paivio, Imagery and verbal processes, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Oxford,
1971.
[29] A. Richardson, Verbalizer-visualizer: a cognitive-style dimension, J. Men.
Imagery 1 (1977) 109125.
[30] J.R. Kirby, P.J. Moore, N.J. Schoeld, Verbal and visual learning styles,
Contemp. Educ. Psychol 13 (1988) 169184.
[31] R.E. Mayer, L.J. Massa, Three facets of visual and verbal learners: cognitive
ability, cognitive style, and learning preference, J. Educ. Psychol. 95 (2003)
833846.
[32] D.L.M. Kraemer, L.M. Rosenberg, S.L. Thompson-Schill, The neural correlations
of visual and verbal cognitive styles, J. Neurosci. 29 (2009) 37923798.
[33] A. Abraham, S. Windmann, Creative cognition: the diverse operations and the
prospect of applying a cognitive neuroscience perspective, Methods 42 (2007)
3848.
[34] T.M. Amabile, The Social Psychology of Creativity, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1983.
[35] J.H. Steiger, Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix, Psychol.
Bull. 87 (1980) 245251.

101

[36] G. Ganis, W.L. Thompson, S.M. Kosslyn, Brain areas underlying visual mental
imagery and visual perception: an fMRI study, Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 20
(2000) 226241.
[37] A. Ishai, L.G. Ungerleider, J.V. Haxby, Distributed neural systems for the
generation of visual images, Neuron 28 (2000) 979990.
[38] A. Mechelli, C.J. Price, K.J. Friston, A. Ishai, Where bottom-up meets top-down:
neuronal interactions during perception and imagery, Cereb. Cortex 14 (2004)
12561265.
[39] A.N. Rich, M.A. Williams, A. Puce, A. Syngeniotis, M.A. Howard, F. McGlone,
et al., Neural correlates of imagined and synaesthetic colours,
Neuropsychologia 44 (2006) 29182925.
[40] S.M. Smith, Fixation, incubation, and insight in memory and creative thinking,
in: S.M. Smith, T.M. Ward, R.A. Finke (Eds.), The Creative Cognition Approach,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995, pp. 135146.
[41] G.L. Murphy, Comprehending complex concepts, Cogn. Sci. 12 (1988)
529562.
[42] O. Blajenkova, M. Kozhevnikov, M.A. Motes, Object-spatial imagery: a new
self report imagery questionnaire, Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 20 (2006) 2.