Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Towards a shared ontology: A generic classification of cognitive processes in conceptual design

  • Laura Hay (a1), Alex H. B. Duffy (a1), Chris McTeague (a1), Laura M. Pidgeon (a2), Tijana Vuletic (a1) and Madeleine Grealy (a2)...
Abstract

Towards addressing ontological issues in design cognition research, this paper presents the first generic classification of cognitive processes investigated in protocol studies on conceptual design cognition. The classification is based on a systematic review of 47 studies published over the past 30 years. Three viewpoints on the nature of design cognition are outlined (search, exploration and design activities), highlighting considerable differences in the concepts and terminology applied to describe cognition. To provide a more unified view of the cognitive processes fundamentally under study, we map specific descriptions of cognitive processes provided in protocol studies to more generic, established definitions in the cognitive psychology literature. This reveals a set of 6 categories of cognitive process that appear to be commonly studied and are therefore likely to be prevalent in conceptual design: (1) long-term memory; (2) semantic processing; (3) visual perception; (4) mental imagery processing; (5) creative output production and (6) executive functions. The categories and their constituent processes are formalised in the generic classification. The classification provides the basis for a generic, shared ontology of cognitive processes in design that is conceptually and terminologically consistent with the ontology of cognitive psychology and neuroscience. In addition, the work highlights 6 key avenues for future empirical research: (1) the role of episodic and semantic memory; (2) consistent definitions of semantic processes; (3) the role of sketching from alternative theoretical perspectives on perception and mental imagery; (4) the role of working memory; (5) the meaning and nature of synthesis and (6) unidentified cognitive processes implicated in conceptual design elsewhere in the literature.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Towards a shared ontology: A generic classification of cognitive processes in conceptual design
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Towards a shared ontology: A generic classification of cognitive processes in conceptual design
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Towards a shared ontology: A generic classification of cognitive processes in conceptual design
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Distributed as Open Access under a CC-BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Corresponding author
Email address for correspondence: laura.hay@strath.ac.uk
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

A. Abraham  & A. Bubic 2015 Semantic memory as the root of imagination. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00325.

U. *Athavankar , P. Bokil  & K. Guruprasad 2008 Reaching out in the mind’s space. In Design Computing and Cognition ’08, pp. 321340. Springer.

U. A. *Athavankar 1997 Mental imagery as a design tool. Cybernetics and Systems 28 (1), 2542. doi:10.1080/019697297126236.

A. Baddeley 1983 Working memory. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 302 (1110), 311324.

A. Baddeley 2003 Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews – Neuroscience 4, 829839.

R. E. Beaty , P. J. Silvia , E. C. Nusbaum , E. Jauk  & M. Benedek 2014 The roles of associative and executive processes in creative cognition. Memory & Cognition 42 (7), 11861197. doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0428-8.

M. Benedek , E. Jauk , A. Fink , K. Koschutnig , G. Reishofer , F. Ebner  & A. C. Neubauer 2013 To create or to recall? Neural mechanisms underlying the generation of creative new ideas. NeuroImage 88, 125133. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.021.

R. C. K. Chan , D. Shum , T. Toulopoulou  & E. Y. H. Chen 2008 Assessment of executive functions: review of instruments and identification of critical issues. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology: The Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists 23 (2), 201216. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.010.

T. *Chandrasekera , N. Vo  & N. D’Souza 2013 The effect of subliminal suggestions on sudden moments of inspiration (SMI) in the design process. Design Studies 34 (2), 193215. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.09.002.

A. Dietrich 2004 The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11 (6), 10111026. doi:10.3758/BF03196731.

M. Dinar , J. J. Shah , J. Cagan , L. Leifer , J. Linsey , S. M. Smith  & N. V. Hernandez 2015 Empirical studies of designer thinking: past, present, and future. Journal of Mechanical Design 137 (2), 113. doi:10.1115/1.4029025.

K. *Dorst  & N. Cross 2001 Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies 22 (5), 425437. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.

K. Dorst  & J. Dijkhuis 1995 Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies 16 (2), 261274. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(94)00012-3.

M. *Eckersley 1988 The form of design processes: a protocol analysis study. Design Studies 9 (2), 8694. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(88)90034-8.

K. D. Federmeier , D. B. McLennan , E. Ochoa  & M. Kutas 2002 The impact of semantic memory organization and sentence context information on spoken language processing by younger and older adults: an ERP study. Psychophysiology 39 (2), 133146. doi:10.1111/1469-8986.3920133.

R. A. Finke 1996 Imagery, creativity, and emergent structure. Consciousness and Cognition 5 (3), 381393. doi:10.1006/ccog.1996.0024.

J. Fish  & S. Scrivener 1990 Amplifying the mind’s eye: sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo 23 (1), 117126.

G. Ganis 2013 Visual mental imagery. In Multisensory Imagery (ed. S. Lacey  & R. Lawson ), pp. 928. Springer; doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5879-1.

J. S. Gero  & U. Kannengiesser 2004 The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies 25 (4), 373391. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010.

J. S. Gero  & H.-H. Tang 2001 The differences between retrospective and concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process. Design Studies 22 (3), 283295. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00030-2.

A. K. Goel 1997 Design, analogy, and creativity. IEEE Expert 12 (3), 6270. doi:10.1109/64.590078.

V. Goel 2014 Creative brains: designing in the real world. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8, 114. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00241.

G. *Goldschmidt 1991 The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal 4 (2), 123143. doi:10.1080/10400419109534381.

M. *Kavakli  & J. S. Gero 2001 Sketching as mental imagery processing. Design Studies 22 (4), 347364. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00002-3.

M. *Kavakli  & J. S. Gero 2002 The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: a case study on novice and expert designers. Design Studies 23 (1), 2540. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00021-7.

M. Khorshidi , J. J. Shah  & J. Woodward 2014 Applied tests of design skills. Part III: Abstract reasoning. Journal of Mechanical Design 136, 101101-1–101101-11. doi:10.1115/1.4027986.

C. *Kruger  & N. Cross 2006 Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes. Design Studies 27 (5), 527548. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.001.

D. *Leblebici-Basar  & J. Altarriba 2013 The role of imagery and emotion in the translation of concepts into product form. The Design Journal 16 (3), 295314.

Y. Li , J. Wang , X. Li  & W. Zhao 2007 Design creativity in product innovation. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 33 (3–4), 213222. doi:10.1007/s00170-006-0457-y.

L. a. *Liikkanen  & M. Perttula 2009 Exploring problem decomposition in conceptual design among novice designers. Design Studies 30 (1), 3859. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.07.003.

P. Lloyd , B. Lawson  & P. Scott 1995 Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition? Design Studies 16 (2), 237259. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(94)00011-2.

A. Martin  & L. L. Chao 2001 Semantic memory and the brain: structure and processes. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 11 (2), 194201. doi:10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00196-3.

S. Mednick 1962 The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review 69 (3), 220232.

A. D. Milner  & M. A. Goodale 2008 Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia 46 (3), 774785. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.10.005.

D. Moher , A. Liberati , J. Tetzlaff  & D. G. Altman 2009 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6 (7), 16. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

M. D. Mumford , K. E. Medeiros  & P. J. Partlow 2012 Creative thinking: processes, strategies, and knowledge. Journal of Creative Behavior 46 (1), 3047. doi:10.1002/jocb.003.

R. A. Poldrack , A. Kittur , D. Kalar , E. Miller , C. Seppa , Y. Gil , D. S. Parker , F. W. Sabb  & R. M. Bilder 2011 The cognitive atlas: toward a knowledge foundation for cognitive neuroscience. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 5, 111. doi:10.3389/fninf.2011.00017.

M. A. Runco  & I. Chand 1995 Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review 7 (3), 243267. doi:10.1007/BF02213373.

P. Sarkar  & A. Chakrabarti 2014 Ideas generated in conceptual design and their effects on creativity. Research in Engineering Design 25 (3), 185201. doi:10.1007/s00163-014-0173-9.

J. J. Shah , R. E. Millsap , J. Woodward  & S. M. Smith 2012 Applied tests of design skills. Part 1. Divergent thinking. Journal of Mechanical Design 134, 021005-1–021005-10. doi:10.1115/1.4005594.

J. J. Shah , R. E. Millsap , J. Woodward  & S. M. Smith 2013 Applied tests of design skills. Part II. Visual thinking. Journal of Mechanical Design 135, 071004-1–071004-11. doi:10.1115/1.4005594.

S. K. Sim  & A. H. B. Duffy 2003 Towards an ontology of generic engineering design activities. Research in Engineering Design 14 (4), 200223. doi:10.1007/s00163-003-0037-1.

S. K. Sim  & A. H. B. Duffy 2004 Evolving a model of learning in design. Research in Engineering Design 15 (1), 4061. doi:10.1007/s00163-003-0044-2.

L. R. Squire  & S. M. Zola 1998 Episodic memory, semantic memory, and amnesia. Hippocampus 8, 205211.

L. A. *Stauffer  & D. G. Ullman 1991 Fundamental processes of mechanical designers based on empirical data. Journal of Engineering Design 2 (2), 113125. doi:10.1080/09544829108901675.

B. Tversky 2014 Some ways of thinking. In Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology, Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics (ed. L. Magnani ), pp. 38. Springer; doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37428-9.

V. K. Viswanathan  & J. S. Linsey 2012 Physical models and design thinking: a study of functionality, novelty and variety of ideas. Journal of Mechanical Design 134 (9), 091004. doi:10.1115/1.4007148.

L. Zhang  & W. Lin 2013 Selective Visual Attention: Computational Models and Applications. John Wiley & Sons Singapore Pte Ltd.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Design Science
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2053-4701
  • URL: /core/journals/design-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 17
Total number of PDF views: 189 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 204 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 22nd May 2017 - 22nd September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.