Monica Lopez-Gonzalez and Charles Limb, both of Johns Hopkins University, authored a recent article entitled “Musical Creativity and the Brain” that appears in the online journal Cerebrum, from the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives,

These two researchers are among a small group of scientists who are using brain imaging to study the neural underpinnings of artistic creativity. Limb, and his colleague Allan Braun, put keyboard players in an fMRI and look at what parts of the brain are activated when participants “either freely improvised to the auditory accompaniment of a prerecorded jazz quartet or reproduced memorized jazz sequences.”

Lopez-Gonzalez has added to the research on improvisation by trying to “identify the neural substrates underlying the spontaneous generation of rhyming sequences in hip-hop performances.” Lopez-Gonzalez had professional freestyle rappers perform to rhythmic accompaniment “as they either spontaneously improvised lyrics or recited a pre-memorized novel rap.”

Two conclusions can be taken from the research: 1) music performance engages multiple parts of the brain, and 2) improvisational music activates different parts of the brain than is activated by reading from a score or rapping from a pre-memorized script.

The first point is important for discussions of brain health and cognitive fitness, which are improved when the brain is stimulated and exercised.  Mental stimulation is more effective when multiple parts of the brain (neural/glial cell networks) are fully are engaged. Just as with physical exercise, mental exercise needs to take a cross-training approach, engaging as many different, connected brain areas as possible.  The work by Limb and Lopez-Gonzales contributes to a growing body of research that shows that music production and music appreciation engage large distributed areas of the brain.  It is fair to assume, therefore, that making and listening to music are activities that are likely to promote the health and vitality of our brains.

The second point is relevant to brain health as well, and also tells us something about the nature of creativity and how we might be able to improve our creative efforts.  As both Limb and Lopez-Gonzales demonstrated, both types of performance (improvisation on the one hand, and strict adherence to a written score on the other) use multiple parts of the brain, but they use different parts.  To get the best brain workout, therefore, performers should integrate both approaches in order to engage a full range of interconnected brain processing networks.

Further, it is important to note that improvisation requires not only the activation of different cognitive processing networks, but also the quieting or inhibition of other brain regions that support reading from a score. In other words, creativity involves a recognition of which cognitive functions need to be engaged and which need to be inhibited in order to best support the type of performance one is practicing or performing.  When a jazz combo is playing together and reading their charts they need to engage one network of brain functions. But, then when the individual musicians break out for their improvised solos, the improviser needs to turn down the chart-reading brain areas and turn on the improvising brain areas.  This metacognitive activity – thinking about thinking – is high-level exercise for the brain.

Engagement in creative activities that mix learned activities with improvisational routines provide an excellent workout for brains of all ages.

Enhance creativity by learning when to stimulate your brain and when to make it quiet.

Oddly enough, creativity may be promoted by the ability to inhibit brain activity (at chosen times).

New research sheds light on how we need to use different cognitive functions to complete different aspects of the creative process. Take a seemingly simple creative challenge – selecting the proper word to complete a sentence. We confront this challenge on a continual basis as we speak, write or conduct private dialogues inside our heads.

At its simplest level, finding the right word is a two-step process. First, a collection of appropriate words must be generated and then, in the second step, just one of those words must be selected. This conception of creativity has been called the the dual-state model of creative cognition (Howard-Jones, 2002) or the Geneplore model (Fink, et al, 1992). We generate a collection of options, then explore the resulting pool of options to settle on the one option that strikes us as the best. The first stage requires a loose focus that welcomes remote associations from across broadly dispersed brain regions; the second requires a tight and critical focus that limits and reduces options.

Objective one is quantity – lots of options, some good, most bad (or at least not as good as others).

Objective two is quality – the one best option.

On a cellular level, a word takes shape when specific groups of brain cells are activated and fire together in a specific pattern and sequence. One pattern and sequence gives us one word, another gives us a different word. Each word is a discrete brain cell event. The generation of multiple word options takes place largely outside our conscious awareness, which is a good thing, because multiple neural events occur simultaneously in a cacophonous cascade of brain cell activation. When generating options, the brain is highly stimulated. Selection of one word over another, on the other hand, requires a different cognitive approach.

Hannah Snyder and her colleagues at the University of Colorado discovered that the selection process is enhanced when brain activity is inhibited. Snyder simulated the word process by asking test subjects to supply the best verb to follow a specific noun. For example, the researchers might ask their test subjects to provide the best verb to go with the noun “cat,” such as the verbs “purr,” “meow,” “lick,” “run,” “stalk,” and so on.

Snyder and colleagues looked at neuronal activity in an area of the brain called the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC), which is a region that “has been implicated in selecting among competing alternatives during language processing.”

Apparently, we select the word option that is making the most noise or firing the most vigorously. But when there is too much noise, it is hard to separate the verbal wheat from the chaff. What the Colorado researchers found was that when there are too many word options the noise is cacophonous and the neuronal racket makes the selection process more difficult. To help sort things out, the brain, needs to suppress the noise of the weaker signals. With fewer options and less noise, the strongest candidates become more obvious. Snyder and colleagues used a chemical intervention to inhibit brain activity in the VLPFC, thus enhancing the ability to select the best word.

So, going back to the dual-state model of creativity we can see that step one (generation of lots of ideas/words) requires stimulation of the appropriate brain areas, while step two (selection of the one very best idea/word) requires inhibition of brain cell activity.

To enhance our creative abilities, therefore, we need to be able to recognize which stage of the creative process we are in and understand what type of cognitive abilities are needed for the job. Further, we need to be able to switch, gracefully, from one cognitive strategy to another, often shifting 180 degrees.

In sum, when we are trying to generate as many ideas/words as possible, our brains need to be stimulated. We need a lot of activity among our neurons. The most intriguing finding from the University of Colorado research is that the opposite is true when we are selecting from among the list of words that was generated. Selection of one among many is facilitated if a brain cell is inhibited. It is as though our brains put a lot of energy into the system in step one and stimulate the firing of as many different words as possible. Then, in step two, the brain says, holds those words in working memory, but then cranks DOWN the energy so that only the best choices remain activated.

References
Fink et al., (1992) Referenced by Ward, &, Kolomyts, Chapter 5, Cognition & Creativity in Kaufman & Steinberg, (2010) Cambridge Handbook of Creativity.

Howard-Jones, Paul. A. (2002). Dual-state Model of Creative cognition for Supporting Strategies that Foster Creativity in the Classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, 215-226.

Snyder, Hannah, R et al. (2010) Neuronal inhibition enables selection during language processing. PNAS, September 21, 2010, Vol. 107, no 38, 16483-16488.