Background. Alexander Romanovich Luria (1902–1977) is a widely recognized authority, attributed with the birth and development of neuropsychology. Reading the list of Luria’s publications makes us aware of the wide range of his interests: from the brain location of mental functions, through methods of rehabilitation and education, cognitive processing, issues of language, intellectual development or the impact of culture on human development, to intercultural research, and consequently to the neuropsychology of creativity. The purpose of this article is to show the link between Luria’s approach and the neuropsychology of creativity, and to demonstrate that a process thinking, taking into account brain/mind state, offers a new way of conceptualizing different approaches to creativity, which can be a step toward their unification, bringing into relation the continuum of passage in nature to a transition from repetition to innovation to genius.
Objective. The aim of the present paper is to present the brain mechanisms of creativity. It discusses the neuropsychology of creativity as a subdiscipline developing on the borderline of: (1) medical neuroscience — using clinical and experimental neuroanatomical, neurophysiological, neurobiological, neurosurgical, neurological, neuropsychiatric and (2) social neuroscience — using social psychology and neuropsychology, social linguistics and neurocultural studies to help disabled people. Special focus is placed on the functioning of artists with various forms of brain damage. The relationships between brain damage and the quality of creation are also discussed. In addition, a review of opinions of various authors from around the world on the relationship of the healthy and the damaged brain with creativity is presented in the paper.
Case study. Described also are ways to avoid pitfalls in the interpretation of works of art taking into account Luria’s syndrom analysis. While studying the neurological and neuropsychiatric basis of the creativity of people with various brain injuries, one should take into account the possibility of the co-occurrence of syndromes as well as the overlapping of symptoms. The paper presents a case history of the illness of an artist that illustrates the importance of performing a syndrome analysis based on the Lurian approach. It also indicates the significance of supporting any neuropsychological assessment with the use of neuromarkers to avoid arriving at a false diagnosis. In the case of the patient described neurophysiological studies (neuroimaging studies of the brain, quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG), event-related potentials (ERPs) and standardized Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (sLORETA) have proved to be very useful in the confirmation of his neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric diagnosis.
Conclusions. The paper has presented data confirming the importance of Luria’s approach in the development of the neuropsychology of creativity. It was also an attempt to explain why we create, and what goes on in our bodies and minds when we begin to explore creative possibilities. Art in all of its manifestations (visual art, music, literature, dance, theater, and more) is an important feature of human societies in both norm and pathology, and therefore deserves further study.
Lurian Approach and Neuropsychology of Creativity
