Computationally constructing a repository of compound remote associates test items in American English with comRAT-G

  • Ana-Maria Olteţeanu
  • Holger Schultheis
  • Jonathan B. Dyer


The Remote Associates Test (RAT) has been used to measure creativity, however few repositories or standardizations of test items exist, like the normative data on 144 items provided by Bowden and Jung-Beeman. comRAT is a computational solver which has been used to solve the compound RAT in linguistic and visual forms, showing correlation to human performance over the normative data provided by Bowden and Jung-Beeman. This paper describes using a variant of comRAT, comRAT-G, to generate and construct a repository of compound RAT items for use in the cognitive psychology and cognitive modeling community. Around 17 million compound Remote Associates Test items are created from nouns alone, aiming to provide control over (i) frequency of occurrence of query items, (ii) answer items, (iii) the probability of coming up with an answer, (iv) keeping one or more query items constant and (v) keeping the answer constant. Queries produced by comRAT-G are evaluated in a study in comparison with queries from the normative dataset of Bowden and Jung-Beeman, showing that comRAT-G queries are similar to the established query set.


Remote associates test Creative cognition Computational creativity Cognitive modeling 



Ana-Maria Olteţeanu gratefully acknowledges the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for the Creative Cognitive Systems (CreaCogs) project.8 The support offered by the RISE DAAD program is acknowledged by Ana-Maria Olteţeanu and Jonathan B. Dyer. We thank Thansuda Kraisangka from Mahidol University for helping us create the interface to the generated test items.


  1. Ansburg, P. I., & Hill, K. (2003). Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(7), 1141–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arden, R., Chavez, R. S., Grazioplene, R., & Jung, R. E. (2010). Neuroimaging creativity: a psychometric view. Behavioural Brain Research, 214(2), 143–156.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baba, Y. (1982). An analysis of creativity by means of the remote associates test for adult revised in Japanese (JARAT FORM a). The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 52(6), 330–336.Google Scholar
  4. Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35(4), 634–639.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bringsjord, S. (2011). Psychometric artificial intelligence. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 23(3), 271–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cai, D. J., Mednick, S. A., Harrison, E. M., Kanady, J. C., & Mednick, S. C. (2009). REM, not incubation, improves creativity by priming associative networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(25), 10130–10134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chermahini, S. A., Hickendorff, M., & Hommel, B. (2012). Development and validity of a Dutch version of the remote associates task: An item-response theory approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i–113.Google Scholar
  9. Fodor, E. (1999). Subclinical inclination toward manic-depression and creative performance on the remote associates test. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(6), 1273–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance tests of creative thinking (TCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maier, N. R. (1931). Reasoning in humans. ii. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12(2), 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. (1971). Remote associates test: Examiner’s manual. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  14. Olteţeanu, A.-M. (2014). Two general classes in creative problem-solving? An account based on the cognitive processes involved in the problem structure - representation structure relationship. In: Besold, T., Kühnberger, K. U., Schorlemmer, M., & Smaill, A. (Eds.) Proceedings of the international conference on computational creativity, Vol. 01-2014: Osnabrück.Google Scholar
  15. Olteţeanu, A.-M. (2016). From simple machines to eureka in four not-so-easy steps. Towards creative visuospatial intelligence. In: Müller, V. (Ed.) Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence., (Vol. 376. pp. 159–180): Springer.
  16. Olteţeanu, A.-M., & Falomir, Z. (2015). ComRAT-c - a computational compound remote associates test solver based on language data and its comparison to human performance. Pattern Recognition Letters, 67, 81–90. Scholar
  17. Olteţeanu, A.-M., & Falomir, Z. (2016). Object replacement and object composition in a creative cognitive system. Towards a computational solver of the alternative uses test. Cognitive Systems Research, 39, 15–32. Scholar
  18. Olteţeanu, A.-M., & Schultheis, H. (in press). What determines creative association? revealing two factors which separately influence the creative process when solving the remote associates test. The Journal of Creative Behaviour.
  19. Olteţeanu, A.-M., Gautam, B., & Falomir, Z. (2015). Towards a visual remote associates test and its computational solver. In: Proceedings of the third international workshop on artificial intelligence and cognition 2015, (Vol. 1510. pp. 19–28): CEUR-Ws.Google Scholar
  20. Olteţeanu, A.-M., Falomir, Z., & Freksa, C. (in press). Artificial cognitive systems that can answer human creativity tests: an approach and two case studies. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. Google Scholar
  21. Qiu, J., Li, H., Yang, D., Luo, Y., Li, Y., Wu, Z., & Zhang, Q. (2008). The neural basis of insight problem solving: an event-related potential study. Brain and Cognition, 68(1), 100–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Saugstad, P., & Raaheim, K. (1957). Problem-solving and availability of functions. Acta Psychologica, 13, 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schooler, J. W., & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In: Ward, T., & Finke, R. (Eds.) The creative cognition approach. (pp. 249–268). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sio, U. N., & Rudowicz, E. (2007). The role of an incubation period in creative problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sitton, S. C., & Pierce, E. R. (2004). Synesthesia, creativity and puns 1. Psychological Reports, 95(2), 577–580.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Storm, B. C., Angello, G., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Thinking can cause forgetting: memory dynamics in creative problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 1287.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tucker, A. (2006). Applied combinatorics. Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  29. Ward, J., Thompson-Lake, D., Ely, R., & Kaminski, F. (2008). Synaesthesia, creativity and art: What is the link? British Journal of Psychology, 99(1), 127–141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Whitt, J. K., & Prentice, N. M. (1977). Cognitive processes in the development of children’s enjoyment and comprehension of joking riddles. Developmental Psychology, 13(2), 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wiley, J. (1998). Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 26(4), 716–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Worthen, B. R., & Clark, P. M. (1971). Toward an improved measure of remote associational ability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8(2), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognitive Systems, Bremen Spatial Cognition CenterUniversity of BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations