Automated Scoring of Figural Tests of Creativity with Computer Vision

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Journal of Creative Behavior Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1002/jocb.677
Selcuk Acar, Peter Organisciak, Denis Dumas
{"title":"Automated Scoring of Figural Tests of Creativity with Computer Vision","authors":"Selcuk Acar,&nbsp;Peter Organisciak,&nbsp;Denis Dumas","doi":"10.1002/jocb.677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>In this three-study investigation, we applied various approaches to score drawings created in response to both Form A and Form B of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural (broadly TTCT-F) as well as the Multi-Trial Creative Ideation task (MTCI). We focused on TTCT-F in Study 1, and utilizing a random forest classifier, we achieved 79% and 81% accuracy for drawings only (<i>r</i> = .57; .54), 80% and 85% for drawings and titles (<i>r</i> = .59; .65), and 78% and 85% for titles alone (<i>r</i> = .54; .65), across Form A and Form B, respectively. We trained a combined model for both TTCT-F forms concurrently with fine-tuned vision transformer models (i.e., BEiT) observing accuracy on images of 83% (<i>r</i> = .64)<i>.</i> Study 2 extended these analyses to 11,075 drawings produced for MTCI. With the feature-based regressors, we found a Pearson correlation with human labels (<i>r</i>s <i>=</i> .80, 78, and .76 for AdaBoost, and XGBoost, respectively). Finally, the vision transformer method demonstrated a correlation of <i>r</i> = .85. In Study 3, we re-analyzed the TTCT-F and MTCI data with unsupervised learning methods, which worked better for MTCI than TTCT-F but still underperformed compared to supervised learning methods. Findings are discussed in terms of research and practical implications featuring Ocsai-D, a new in-browser scoring interface.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":39915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Creative Behavior","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Creative Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jocb.677","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this three-study investigation, we applied various approaches to score drawings created in response to both Form A and Form B of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural (broadly TTCT-F) as well as the Multi-Trial Creative Ideation task (MTCI). We focused on TTCT-F in Study 1, and utilizing a random forest classifier, we achieved 79% and 81% accuracy for drawings only (r = .57; .54), 80% and 85% for drawings and titles (r = .59; .65), and 78% and 85% for titles alone (r = .54; .65), across Form A and Form B, respectively. We trained a combined model for both TTCT-F forms concurrently with fine-tuned vision transformer models (i.e., BEiT) observing accuracy on images of 83% (r = .64). Study 2 extended these analyses to 11,075 drawings produced for MTCI. With the feature-based regressors, we found a Pearson correlation with human labels (rs = .80, 78, and .76 for AdaBoost, and XGBoost, respectively). Finally, the vision transformer method demonstrated a correlation of r = .85. In Study 3, we re-analyzed the TTCT-F and MTCI data with unsupervised learning methods, which worked better for MTCI than TTCT-F but still underperformed compared to supervised learning methods. Findings are discussed in terms of research and practical implications featuring Ocsai-D, a new in-browser scoring interface.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于计算机视觉的创造性图形测验自动评分
在这项三项研究中,我们采用了不同的方法来对托伦斯创造性思维-图形测试(简称TTCT-F)的表格A和表格B以及多试验创造性思维任务(MTCI)的图表进行评分。我们在研究1中专注于TTCT-F,并使用随机森林分类器,我们仅在图纸上实现了79%和81%的准确率(r = 0.57;.54),图纸和标题分别为80%和85% (r = .59;.65),单独的头衔分别为78%和85% (r = .54;.65),横跨表格A和表格B。我们同时训练了TTCT-F两种形式的组合模型和微调视觉转换模型(即BEiT),对图像的观察准确率为83% (r = 0.64)。研究2将这些分析扩展到为MTCI制作的11075张图纸。使用基于特征的回归器,我们发现了与人类标签的Pearson相关性(rs =。AdaBoost和XGBoost分别为80、78和0.76)。最后,视觉变换法的相关性为r = 0.85。在研究3中,我们使用无监督学习方法重新分析了TTCT-F和MTCI数据,该方法对MTCI的效果优于TTCT-F,但与监督学习方法相比仍表现不佳。研究结果讨论了研究和实际意义的特点Ocsai-D,一个新的浏览器内评分界面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Creative Behavior
Journal of Creative Behavior Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Journal of Creative Behavior is our quarterly academic journal citing the most current research in creative thinking. For nearly four decades JCB has been the benchmark scientific periodical in the field. It provides up to date cutting-edge ideas about creativity in education, psychology, business, arts and more.
期刊最新文献
Beyond Imagination: Developing and Validating the Young Children's Inventory of Creative Activities The PISA 2022 Creative Thinking Assessment: A Welcome Opportunity to Explore the Mechanics of Flexibility Scoring Cognitive Conflict in Rule Violation and Creativity: Evidence for a Shared Cognitive Basis Do Fans of Violent Stories Show a Higher Potential for Creative Harm? True Crime as a Stimulating Environment for Malevolent Creativity Using Immersive Technology to Understand the Effect of Emotional Shift on Creativity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1