Search

A significant amount of European basic and clinical neuroscience research includes the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), mainly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Two recent changes in the EU regulations, the introduction of the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) (2017/745) and the Annex XVI have caused significant problems and confusions in the brain stimulation field. The negative consequences of the MDR for non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) have been largely overlooked and until today, have not been consequently addressed by National Competent Authorities, local ethical committees, politicians and by the scientific communities. In addition, a rushed bureaucratic decision led to seemingly wrong classification of NIBS products without an intended medical purpose into the same risk group III as invasive stimulators. Overregulation is detrimental for any research and for future developments, therefore researchers, clinicians, industry, patient representatives and an ethicist were invited to contribute to this document with the aim of starting a constructive dialogue and enacting positive changes in the regulatory environment.

A significant amount of European basic and clinical neuroscience research includes the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), mainly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Two recent changes in the EU regulations, the introduction of the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) (2017/745) and the Annex XVI have caused significant problems and confusions in the brain stimulation field. The negative consequences of the MDR for non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) have been largely overlooked and until today, have not been consequently addressed by National Competent Authorities, local ethical committees, politicians and by the scientific communities. In addition, a rushed bureaucratic decision led to seemingly wrong classification of NIBS products without an intended medical purpose into the same risk group III as invasive stimulators. Overregulation is detrimental for any research and for future developments, therefore researchers, clinicians, industry, patient representatives and an ethicist were invited to contribute to this document with the aim of starting a constructive dialogue and enacting positive changes in the regulatory environment.

A significant amount of European basic and clinical neuroscience research includes the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), mainly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Two recent changes in the EU regulations, the introduction of the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) (2017/745) and the Annex XVI have caused significant problems and confusions in the brain stimulation field. The negative consequences of the MDR for non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) have been largely overlooked and until today, have not been consequently addressed by National Competent Authorities, local ethical committees, politicians and by the scientific communities. In addition, a rushed bureaucratic decision led to seemingly wrong classification of NIBS products without an intended medical purpose into the same risk group III as invasive stimulators. Overregulation is detrimental for any research and for future developments, therefore researchers, clinicians, industry, patient representatives and an ethicist were invited to contribute to this document with the aim of starting a constructive dialogue and enacting positive changes in the regulatory environment. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2024 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.]

A significant amount of European basic and clinical neuroscience research includes the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), mainly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Two recent changes in the EU regulations, the introduction of the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) (2017/745) and the Annex XVI have caused significant problems and confusions in the brain stimulation field. The negative consequences of the MDR for non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) have been largely overlooked and until today, have not been consequently addressed by National Competent Authorities, local ethical committees, politicians and by the scientific communities. In addition, a rushed bureaucratic decision led to seemingly wrong classification of NIBS products without an intended medical purpose into the same risk group III as invasive stimulators. Overregulation is detrimental for any research and for future developments, therefore researchers, clinicians, industry, patient representatives and an ethicist were invited to contribute to this document with the aim of starting a constructive dialogue and enacting positive changes in the regulatory environment. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2024 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.]

The aim of this chapter is the introduction of two new concepts, ‘balancing constraints’ and ‘the sweet spot of creativity’, as promising new paths for creativity research. This is motivated by the fact that creativity research shows a growing interest in the fundamental entwinement of constraints and creativity, with skillful and innovative handling of constraints seen as a prerequisite for apt creative performance. Based on a brief review of current disparate conceptualizations of constraints as both enablers and restrainers of creative activities, we begin by proposing the unifying concept ‘creativity constraints’ to help establish common terminological ground. Since the presence of constraints change over time, we suggest the term ‘constrainedness’ to articulate this total constraint intensity at a given time. This allows us to introduce our main contribution, the concept ‘the sweet spot’, to address the salient situations where the creative practitioner can be said to experience the ‘right’ level of constrainedness conducive to optimum creative performance. We then proceed to consider how the sweet spot can be attained by balancing constraints, i.e., by manipulating the intensity of constrainedness. More concretely, this means by hardening or softening the constraints at hand, resulting in a higher or lower level of constrainedness. Finally, we discuss how future studies can employ and inform these new concepts, which we see as potentially rich for cross-disciplinary creativity research focusing on the essential entwinement of constraints and creativity.

As creativity becomes increasingly recognized as important raw material for innovation, the importance of identifying ways to increase practitioners’ creativity through rigorously designed creativity training programs is highlighted. Therefore we sat out to design a creativity training program specifically developed for innovation practitioners. Our aim, in addition to making a program based on a rigor scientific foundation, was to develop a program which would be relevant for practitioners, theoretically sound, as well as realistic for real world context. This we accomplished, in part, through the transdisciplinary study described in this paper. Co-creation was employed as a method to ensure the three layers of focus would be taken into consideration. The result is a program called Creative Awareness Training which is based on the new Know-Recognize-React model.

The presented study utilizes data collected from an extensive real world concept selection process in new product development (NPD), to investigate whether department specific dominant logics and competences influence the selections made by a marketing department, and what might be driving this logic. The study specifically investigates the impact of the departmental viewpoint onto idea selection in the innovation process, by comparing the selections made by the marketing department (n=31) with those of R&D (n=25) and company executives (n=8). In the NPD project seven concepts were screened for continuation through an individual pairwise comparison, to test eight hypotheses all based on h0: There is no difference between the innovations selected by marketing, R&D, and executive groups. Through an analysis of the between-department variance h0 was rejected (F(12, 366)= 2.312, p<.001), and the results from the eight following hypotheses lend support to extending the concept of dominant logics to the department level, providing some explanations for the large variance found in the evaluation of the three groups. The reported findings have important managerial implications, as they point to which type of logic, and thereby screening of ideas, can be achieved based on which departments are involved in the critical selection of ideas and concepts for continuation in NPD.

In Engineering Education (EE) there is a growing emphasis on providing students with skills and competences within innovation and entrepreneurship. This development has emerged from an identified need for establishment of new enterprises, creation of new possibilities for employment and to contribute to enhanced growth. Engineers are considered to have a key position in this development, and many engineering challenges call for new solutions. Creativity is a prerequisite for the ability to combine present knowledge into new solutions. Hence, creativity is an important subset in innovation. This development gives reasons to reconsider the content in EE and how it is taught. If creativity and innovation are the new key components in academic training of engineers it is also necessary to embrace openness to collaboration and multidisciplinary, holistic views on real life complex problems, and design competences in EE [1]. Still it is well known that there is inertia in Engineering Education to develop new structures and traditions in teaching and learning [2]. In the whole education system there is a growing interest in creative engagement of pupils and students, and the body of research in the area is growing rapidly. Research in this field has an emphasis on the role of the teacher in facilitating creativity, while the question of how to train teachers in teaching creativity is less emphasized [3]. How do we teach creativity to those how are going to teach creativity in EE? At the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) a mandatory teacher training program for new faculty has in its present design been successfully held since 2004. Different approaches to fostering teachers? beliefs of creativity and innovation as teaching methods have been explored in the programme, based on approaches like the ones described in [4]. Based on qualitative surveys and interviews this paper will discuss how the programme influence teachers? beliefs about 1) creativity in teaching and lea

This article investigates how neuroscience in general, and neuroscience of creativity in particular, can be used in teaching "applied creativity" and the usefulness of this approach to creativity training. The article is based on empirical data and our experiences from the Applied NeuroCreativity (ANC) program, taught at business schools in Denmark and Canada. In line with previous studies of successful creativity training programs the ANC participants are first introduced to cognitive concepts of creativity, before applying these concepts to a relevant real world creative problem. The novelty in the ANC program is that the conceptualization of creativity is built on neuroscience, and a crucial aspect of the course is giving the students a thorough understanding of the neuroscience of creativity. Previous studies have reported that the conceptualization of creativity used in such training is of major importance for the success of the training, and we believe that the neuroscience of creativity offers a novel conceptualization for creativity training. Here we present pre/post-training tests showing that ANC students gained more fluency in divergent thinking (a traditional measure of trait creativity) than those in highly similar courses without the neuroscience component, suggesting that principles from neuroscience can contribute effectively to creativity training and produce measurable results on creativity tests. The evidence presented indicates that the inclusion of neuroscience principles in a creativity course can in 8 weeks increase divergent thinking skills with an individual relative average of 28.5%.

Constraints play a vital role as both restrainers and enablers in innovation processes by governing what the creative agent/s can and cannot do, and what the output can and cannot be. Notions of constraints are common in creativity research, but current contributions are highly dispersed due to no overall conceptual framing or shared terminology. This lack of unity hinders overt opportunities for cross-disciplinary interchange. We argue that an improved understanding of constraints in creativity holds a promising potential for advancements in creativity research across domains and disciplines. Here, we give an overview of the growing, but incohesive body of research into creativity and constraints, which leads us to introduce ‘creativity constraints’ as a unifying concept to help bridge these disjoint contributions to facilitate crossdisciplinary interchange. Finally, we suggest key topics and sub-concepts, including ‘late’, ‘self-imposed’, and ‘continua of creativity constraints’, to inform future cross-disciplinary work on creativity constraints.

This paper investigates the potential involvement of epistemic uncertainity in mediating between complex design requirements and strategic switches in software design strategies The analysis revealed that the designers produced an initial fist-pass solution to the given design brief in a breadth-first manner with this solution addressing several easy-to-handle requirements The designers then focused on adding relatively complex-to-handle requirements to this initial solution in what appeared to be a depth-first manner as reflected for example by detailed mental simulations that spanned many transcript segments Fin them more such depth-fist development of complex requirements was linked to increases in epistemic uncertainty a finding that supports the predicted mole of uncertainity in mediating between complex requirements and depth-fist design Overall these findings support a view of software design as involving a mixed breadth-fist and depth-first solution development approach with Strategic switching to depth-first design being triggered by requirement complexity and being mediated by associated feelings of uncertainty (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

This paper investigates the potential involvement of epistemic uncertainity in mediating between complex design requirements and strategic switches in software design strategies The analysis revealed that the designers produced an initial fist-pass solution to the given design brief in a breadth-first manner with this solution addressing several easy-to-handle requirements The designers then focused on adding relatively complex-to-handle requirements to this initial solution in what appeared to be a depth-first manner as reflected for example by detailed mental simulations that spanned many transcript segments Fin them more such depth-fist development of complex requirements was linked to increases in epistemic uncertainty a finding that supports the predicted mole of uncertainity in mediating between complex requirements and depth-fist design Overall these findings support a view of software design as involving a mixed breadth-fist and depth-first solution development approach with Strategic switching to depth-first design being triggered by requirement complexity and being mediated by associated feelings of uncertainty (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved