Design cognition research aims to investigate the cognitive mechanisms and thought processes of human designers. In previous research, the cognitive activity of experienced and inexperienced designers has been compared in order to identify design strategies leading to design creativity. However, it is still unknown whether the design strategies applied are effective and whether the design processes are efficiently improved. In this paper, cognitive efficiency, describing how designers optimize mental resources to achieve creativity in conceptual design processes, was directly measured by the mental effort of designers and the creativity level of design outcomes. The results showed that the experienced designers generated more design concepts with higher quality and variety than did the inexperienced designers. The cognitive efficiency measures indicated that design expertise contributed to improving cognitive efficiency scores of quality. In addition, the systematic design method used by some designers was found to be related to high cognitive efficiency. It can be seen that the evaluation of cognitive efficiency has practical applications for designer training, design methodology evaluation, and design process improvement.
AdamsR. S. (2001). Cognitive processes in iterative design behavior (PhD dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
2.
AhernS.BeattyJ. (1979). Pupillary responses during information processing vary with Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Science, 205, 1289–1292. doi:10.1126/science.472746
3.
AtmanC. J.CardellaM. E.TurnsJ.AdamsR. (2005). Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: An in-depth follow-up study. Design Studies, 26, 325–357. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.005
4.
BaerJ. (2011). Domains of creativity. In MarkA. R.StevenR. P. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 404–408). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
BenamiO.JinY. (2002). Creative stimulation in conceptual design. In Proceedings of the ASME 2002 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computer and Information in Engineering Conference (pp. 251–263). doi:10.1115/DETC2002/DTM-34023
7.
BildaZ.GeroJ. S. (2007). The impact of working memory limitations on the design process during conceptualization. Design Studies, 28, 343–367. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.005
CaiH.DoE. Y. L.ZimringC. M. (2010). Extended linkography and distance graph in design evaluation: an empirical study of the dual effects of inspiration sources in creative design. Design Studies, 31, 146–168. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2009.12.003
10.
CasakinH. (2004). Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process: Expert versus novice performance. Journal of Design Research, 4(2). doi:10.1504/JDR.2004.009846
11.
CennamoK. (1993). Learning from video: Factors influencing learners’ preconceptions and invested mental effort. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 33–45. doi:10.1007/bf02297356
12.
ChristiaansH. (2002). Creativity as a design criterion. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 41–54. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1401_4
13.
ChusilpP.JinY. (2006). Impact of mental iteration on concept generation. Journal of Mechanical Design, 128(1), 14–25. doi:10.1115/1.2118707
14.
CrossN. (1997). Creativity in design: Analyzing and modeling the creative leap. Leonardo, 30, 311–317.
15.
CrossN. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25, 427–441. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002
16.
CrossN.CrossA. C. (1996). Winning by design: the methods of Gordon Murray, racing car designer. Design Studies, 17, 91–107. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(95)00027-O
17.
De WaardD. (1996). The measurement of drivers’ mental workload (PhD dissertation). University of Groningen, Haren, Netherlands.
18.
DengY. M. (2002). Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 16, 343–362. doi:10.10170S0890060402165024
19.
DorstK.CrossN. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem and solution. Design Studies, 22, 425–437. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
20.
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.TeschromerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363
21.
FinkA.GrabnerR. H.BenedekM.ReishoferG.HauswirthV.FallyM. (2009). The creative brain: Investigation of brain activity during creative problem solving by means of EEG and fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 30, 734–748. doi:10.1002/hbm.20538
22.
GeroJ. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9, 435–448. doi:10.1016/S0950-7051(96)01054-4
23.
GlynnS. M.BrickmanP.ArmstrongN.TaasoobshiraziG. (2011). Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1159–1176. doi:10.1002/tea.20442
24.
GoldschmidtG.SmolkovM. (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design Studies, 27, 549–569. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.002
25.
HaierR. J.SiegelB.TangC.AbelL.BuchsbaumM. S. (1992). Intelligence and changes in regional cerebral glucose metabolic-rate following learning. Intelligence, 16, 415–426. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(92)90018-m
26.
HancockP. A. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31, 519–537. doi:10.1177/001872088903100503
27.
HancockP. A.CairdJ. K. (1993). Experimental evaluation of a model of mental workload. Human Factors, 35, 413–429. doi:10.1177/001872089303500303
28.
HoffmanB. (2012). Cognitive efficiency: A conceptual and methodological comparison. Learning and Instruction, 22, 133–144. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.09.001
29.
HowardT. J.CulleyS. J.DekoninckE. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29, 160–180. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001
JausovecN. (1997). Differences in EEG activity during the solution of closed and open problems. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 317–324. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1004_3
32.
JausovecN. (2000). Differences in cognitive processes between gifted, intelligent, creative, and average individuals while solving complex problems: An EEG study. Intelligence, 28, 213–237. doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(00)00037-4
33.
JohanssenG.MorayN.PewR.RasmussenJ.SandersA.WickensC. (1979). Final report of experimental psychology group. In MorayN. (Ed.), Mental workload: Its theory and measurement (pp. 101–116). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
34.
KalyugaS.SwellerJ. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 83–93. doi:10.1007/bf02504800
35.
KavakliM.GeroJ. S. (2003). Strategic knowledge in differences between an expert and a novice designer. In LindemannU. (Ed.), Human behaviour in design: Individuals, teams, tools (pp. 42–52). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
36.
KavakliM.SuwaM.GeroJ. S.PurcellT. (1999). Sketching interpretation in novice and expert designers. In GeroJ. S.TverskyB. (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design (pp. 209–219). Sydney, Australia: Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney.
37.
KimM. H.KimY. S.LeeH. S.ParkJ. A. (2007). An underlying cognitive aspect of design creativity: Limited commitment mode control strategy. Design Studies, 28, 585–604. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.04.006
38.
KurakawaK. (2004). A scenario-driven conceptual design information model and its formation. Research in Engineering Design, 15, 122–137. doi:10.1007/s00163-004-0050-z
39.
KuuselaH.PaulP. (2000). A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 113, 387–404.
40.
MadanshettyS. I. (1995). Cognitive basis for conceptual design. Research in Engineering Design: Theory Applications and Concurrent Engineering, 7, 232–240.
41.
MayerR. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449–460). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MölleM.MarshallL.WolfB.FehmH. L.BornJ. (1999). EEG complexity and performance measures of creative thinking. Psychophysiology, 36, 95–104. doi:10.1017/S0048577299961619
44.
MulderG. (1986). The concept and measurement of mental effort. In HockeyG. R. J.GaillardA. W. K.ColesM. G .H. (Eds.), Energetics and human information processing (pp. 175–198). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
45.
MumfordM. D.GustafsonS. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.27
NeubauerA. C.FinkA. (2009). Intelligence and neural efficiency. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 1004–1023. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.04.001
48.
PaasF.RenklA.SwellerJ. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8. doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516.d0
49.
PaasF.van MerriënboerJ. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743. doi:10.1177/001872089303500412
50.
PahlG.BeitzW.FeldhusenJ.GroteK.-H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
51.
RoosenburgN. F. M.EekelsJ. (1995). Product design: Fundamentals and methods. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
52.
RypmaB.BergerJ. S.PrabhakaranV.BlyB. M.KimbergD. Y.BiswalB. B. (2006). Neural correlates of cognitive efficiency. Neuroimage, 33, 969–979. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.05.065
53.
SalomonG. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in learning from different sources. Educational Psychologist, 18, 42–50. doi:10.1080/00461528309529260
SimonH. A. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In EstesW. K. (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes: Vol. 5. Human information processing (pp. 271–295). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
SternbergR. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
57.
StoneR. B.WoodK. L. (1999). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 122, 359–370. doi:10.1115/1.1289637
58.
SunG.YaoS. (2012). Investigating the relation between cognitive load and creativity in the conceptual design process. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (pp. 308–312). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. doi:10.1177/1071181312561072
59.
SunG.YaoS.CarreteroJ. A. (2013). Evaluating cognitive efficiency by measuring information contained in designers’ cognitive processes. In Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computer and Information in Engineering Conference (pp. V005T06A029). doi:10.1115/DETC2013-13628.
60.
SuwaM.GeroJ. S.PurcellT. A. (1998). The roles of sketches in early conceptual design processes. In GernsbacherM. A.DerryS. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1043–1048). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
61.
SuwaM.PurcellT.GeroJ. (1998). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions. Design Studies, 19, 455–483. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00016-7
62.
SuwaM.TverskyB. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18, 385–403. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00008-2
63.
SvenssonE.Angelborg-ThanderzM.SjobergL.OlssonS. (1997). Information complexity: Mental workload and performance in combat aircraft. Ergonomics, 40, 362–380. doi:10.1080/001401397188206
64.
SwellerJ. (2009). Cognitive bases of human creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 11–19. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9091-6
ToveyM.PorterS.NewmanR. (2003). Sketching, concept development and automotive design. Design Studies, 24, 135–153. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00035-2
67.
UllmanD. G. (2009). The mechanical design process (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
68.
Van GervenP. W. M.PaasF.van MerriënboerJ. J. G.HendriksM.SchmidtH. G. (2003). The efficiency of multimedia learning into old age. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 489–505. doi:10.1348/000709903322591208
69.
van GogT.KesterL.NievelsteinF.GiesbersB.PaasF. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 325–331. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.021
70.
van GogT.PaasF.van MerriënboerJ. J. G. (2005). Uncovering expertise-related differences in troubleshooting performance: Combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 205–221. doi:10.1002/acp.1112
71.
VicenteK. J.ThorntonD. C.MorayN. (1987). Spectral analysis of sinus arrhythmia: A measure of mental effort. Human Factors, 29, 171–182. doi:10.1177/001872088702900205
72.
YilmazS.SeifertC. M.GonzalezR. (2010). Cognitive heuristics in design: Instructional strategies to increase creativity in idea generation. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AI EDAM), 24(Special Issue 03), 335–355. doi:10.1017/S0890060410000235
73.
YoungM. S.StantonN. A. (2002). Attention and automation: New perspectives on mental underload and performance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 178–194. doi:10.1080/14639220210123789
74.
ZengL. (2010). Creativity in ergonomic design: A supplemental value-adding source for product and service development. Human Factors, 52, 503–525. doi:10.1177/0018720810376056
75.
ZijlstraF. R. H.van DoornL. (1985). The construction of a scale to measure subjective effort. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology, Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences.
