Frequency-spatial organization of brain electrical activity in creative verbal thought: The role of the gender factor
Gender-related differences in the EEG correlates of creative thought were studied by mapping EEG power during performance of a Remote Associations Task as compared with verbal word-generation and simple association tasks. Right-handed students (18 male, 21 female) took part in the studies. Gender-related differences were seen in the factor structure of measures of verbal activity and in the larger number of words generated for a given letter in women than in men. In terms of the originality of the associations, men and women showed no significant difference, though the dynamics of the power of the beta-2 rhythm during creative thought differed. In males, the search for original associations was accompanied by increases in beta-2 power in both hemispheres at the initial stages of performing the task, with local increases in the beta-2 rhythm in the central parts of the cortex at the end of testing. In women, the increase in beta-2 power was initially greater in the right hemisphere than the left, while there was a relative decrease in beta activity in the parietal-temporal areas of the cortex and an increase in the left anterior frontal areas at the terminal stage of task performance. It is suggested that creative verbal thought is based mostly on an “insight” strategy in males, while women additionally use an “intellectual” strategy.
Key wordsdivergent thought functional asymmetry of the hemispheres gender-related differences verbal functions
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.N. V. Vol’f, Gender-Related Differences in the Functional Organization of the Hemisphere Mechanisms of Processing Speech Information [in Russian], OOO “TsVVR” Press, Rostov-on-Don (2000).Google Scholar
- 3.N. V. Vol’f and O. M. Razumnikova, “Sexual dimorphism in the functional organization of the brain during the processing of speech information,” in: Functional Interhemisphere Asymmetry. Selected Readings [in Russian], Nauchnyi Mir, Moscow (2004), pp. 386–410.Google Scholar
- 4.Ya. A. Ponomarev, “The psychology of creativity: perspectives of development,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 6, 38–50 (1994).Google Scholar
- 5.O. M. Razumnikova, “Gender and the professional area of students as factors in creativity,” Vopr. Psikhologii, No. 1, 111–125 (2002).Google Scholar
- 6.O. M. Razumnikova, Thought and the Functional Asymmetry of the Brain [in Russian], Publishing House of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Novosibirsk (2004).Google Scholar
- 7.O. M. Razumnikova and N. V. Vol’f, “Gender-related differences in the temporal dynamics of interhemisphere asymmetry in the perception of speech information,” Byull. Sib. Otdel. Ros. Akad. Med. Nauk, No. 2, 87–90 (1997).Google Scholar
- 8.P. V. Simonov, “Neurobiological bases of creativity,” Fiziol. Cheloveka, 22, No. 2, 5–9 (1995).Google Scholar
- 13.C. Y. Fu, K. Morgan, J. Suckling, S. C. R. Williams, C. Andrew, G. N. Vythelingum, and P. K. McGuire, “A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of overt letter verbal fluency using a clustered acquisition sequence: greater anterior cingulate activation with increased task demand,” Neuroimage, 17, 871–879 (2002).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.D. F. Halpern, Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New York, London (2000), 3rd edition.Google Scholar
- 21.B. A. Klinterberg, S. E. Levander, and D. Schalling, “Cognitive sex differences: speed and problem-solving strategies on computerized neuropsychological tasks,” Percept. Motor Skill, 65, 683–697 (1987).Google Scholar
- 24.J. Meyer-Levy, “Gender differences in information processing: a selectivity interpretation,” in: Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising, P. Cafferata and A. M. Tybout (eds.), Lexington Books, Canada (1989), pp. 128–140.Google Scholar
- 27.O. M. Razoumnikova, “Functional organization of different brain areas during convergent and divergent thinking: An EEG investigation,” Cogn. Brain Res., No. 10, 11–18 (2000).Google Scholar