Computationally constructing a repository of compound remote associates test items in American English with comRAT-G
- 121 Downloads
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.
KeywordsRemote 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.
- 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
- Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i–113.Google Scholar
- Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. (1971). Remote associates test: Examiner’s manual. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26485-1_11, (Vol. 376. pp. 159–180): Springer.
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.177
- 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
- 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
- Tucker, A. (2006). Applied combinatorics. Wiley.Google Scholar
- Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar