Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:01:02.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMPUTATIONAL CONCEPTUAL DISTANCES IN COMBINATIONAL CREATIVITY

Part of: Design Support Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

J. Han ,
M. Hua ,
D. Park ,
P. Wang  and
P. R. N. Childs
J. Han*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
M. Hua
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, United Kingdom
D. Park
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, United Kingdom
P. Wang
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, United Kingdom
P. R. N. Childs
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, United Kingdom
*
*[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Combinational creativity can play a significant role in supporting designers to produce creative ideas during the early stages of new product development. This paper explores conceptual distances in combinational creativity from computational perspectives. A study conducted indicates that different computational measurements show different conceptual distance results. However, the study suggests far-related ideas could lead to outcomes that are more creative than closely-related ones. This paper provides useful insights into exploring future computational design support tools.

Keywords

design creativityidea generationcomputational design methodscombinationalconceptual distance
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 177 - 186
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Blanchette, I. and Dunbar, K. (2000), “How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity”, Memory & Cognition, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 108–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211580CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boden, M.A. (2004), The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms, 2nd ed., Routledge, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, M.A. (2009), “Computer models of creativity”, AI Magazine, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v30i3.2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budanitsky, A. and Hirst, G. (2006), “Evaluating WordNet-based Measures of Lexical Semantic Relatedness”, Computational Linguistics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 13–47. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2006.32.1.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, J., Dow, S.P. and Schunn, C.D. (2015), “Do the best design ideas (really) come from conceptually distant sources of inspiration?”, Design Studies, Vol. 36 No. Supplement C, pp. 31–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, L. et al. (2019), “An artificial intelligence based data-driven approach for design ideation”, Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, Vol. 61, pp. 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvcir.2019.02.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiu, I. and Shu, L.H. (2012), “Investigating effects of oppositely related semantic stimuli on design concept creativity”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.603298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chulvi, V. et al. (2012), “Assessment of the Relationships among Design Methods, Design Activities, and Creativity”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 134 No. 11, pp. 111004–111011. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4007362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, M.C. (2000), “Semantic Distance Measures”, Computational Intelligence, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/0824-7935.00106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N. and Cardoso, C. (2017), “Where next for research on fixation, inspiration and creativity in design?”, Design Studies, Vol. 50, pp. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demirkan, H. and Afacan, Y. (2012), “Assessing creativity in design education: Analysis of creativity factors in the first-year design studio”, Design Studies, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.11.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, K. et al. (2013), “The Meaning of “Near” and “Far”: The Impact of Structuring Design Databases and the Effect of Distance of Analogy on Design Output ”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 135 No. 2, pp. 021007–021012. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4023158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. and Smith, L.A. (2012), “Analogical reasoning”, In: Ramachandran, V.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior, 2nd ed., Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgiev, G.V., Sumitani, N. and Taura, T. (2017), “Methodology for creating new scenes through the use of thematic relations for innovative designs”, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, Vol. 5 No. 1-2, pp. 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2015.1119658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. and Rumpe, B. (2019), “Conceptual distance of models and languages”, Software & Systems Modeling, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 1571–1573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00734-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, J., Forbes, H. and Schaefer, D. (2019a), “An Exploration of the Relations between Functionality, Aesthetics and Creativity in Design”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.29Google Scholar
Han, J. et al. (2019b), “A Further Exploration of the Three Driven Approaches to Combinational Creativity”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2735–2744. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.280Google Scholar
Han, J. et al. (2019c), “Three driven approaches to combinational creativity: Problem-, similarity- and inspiration-driven”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 233 No. 2, pp. 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406217750189Google Scholar
Han, J. et al. (2018a), “The Combinator – a computer-based tool for creative idea generation based on a simulation approach”, Design Science, Vol. 4, p. e11. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2018.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, J. et al. (2018b), “The conceptual distances between ideas in combinational creativity”, DS92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, pp. 1857–1866. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leacock, C. and Chodorow, M. (1998), “Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification”, WordNet: An electronic lexical database, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 265–283.Google Scholar
Lofi, C. (2015), “Measuring Semantic Similarity and Relatedness with Distributional and Knowledge-based Approaches”, Information and Media Technologies, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 493–501. https://doi.org/10.11185/imt.10.493Google Scholar
Lopez, R., Linsey, J.S. and Smith, S.M. (2011), “Characterizing the Effect of Domain Distance in Design-by-Analogy”, In Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp. 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2011-48428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammad, S. (2008), “Measuring semantic distance using distributional profiles of concepts”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Nagai, Y., Taura, T. and Mukai, F. (2009), “Concept blending and dissimilarity: Factors for creative concept generation process”, Design Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 648–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozkan, O. and Dogan, F. (2013), “Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: Differences between expert and novice designers”, Design Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 161–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, P. (1999), “Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: an information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language”, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 95–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salahli, M. (2009), “An approach for measuring semantic relatedness between words via related terms”, Mathematical and Computational Applications, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (2011), “Assessing design creativity”, Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 348–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D.K. (2017), “Domain-general creativity: On Generating Original, Useful, and Surprising Combinations”, In: Kaufman, J.C., Glaveanu, V.P. and J, B. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook Of Creativity across Domains, The Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 18–40.Google Scholar
Speer, R., Chin, J. and Havasi, C. (2017), “ConceptNet 5.5: an open multilingual graph of general knowledge”, Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco, California, USA.Google Scholar
Taura, T. et al. (2007), “A Study on Design Creative Process Focused on Concept Combination Types in Comparison With Linguistic Interpretation Process”, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design ICED07.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977), “Features of similarity”, Psychological Review, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H.-H. and Chan, J.-H. (2010), An Approach to Measuring Metaphoricity of Creative Design, In: Taura, T. and Nagai, Y. (Eds.), Design creativity 2010, Springer London, London, pp. 89–96.Google Scholar
Ward, T.B. (1998), “Analogical distance and purpose in creative thought: mental leaps versus mental hops”, In: Holyoak, K.J., Gentner, D. and Kokinov, B.N. (Eds.), Advances in analogy research: Integration of theory and data from the cognitive, computational, and neural sciences, New Bulgarian University Press, Sofia, Bulgaria, pp. 221–230.Google Scholar
Ward, T.B. (2011), “Analogies”, In: Runco, M.A. and Pritzker, S.R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity, 2nd ed., Academic Press, London, pp. 40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z. and Palmer, M. (1994), “Verbs semantics and lexical selection”, Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Las Cruces, New Mexico. https://doi.org/10.3115/981732.981751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, H. and Zhang, L. (2016), “Promoting Creative Computing: origin, scope, research and applications”, Digital Communications and Networks, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcan.2016.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar