ArticleCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2026
Lower engagement of cognitive control in children on ChatGPT.
Article in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) can scaffold idea generation, but how it engages control, attention, and memory systems in the developing versus mature brain, and how this relates to creativity, remains unclear. We compared 6-7-yr-old children and adults during a naturalistic 5-min co-creative dialog with ChatGPT using the same prompt, in-scanner conversation, undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging scanning and their dialogs were recorded. Functional connectivity was computed within and between seven large-scale networks: cingulo-opercular, default mode, memory retrieval, frontoparietal (FP), salience, ventral attention, and dorsal attention (DAN). Creativity scores, assessed outside of the scanner, did not differ between groups. Adults showed stronger within-network connectivity in control/attention systems, most robustly in FP, with additional effects in salience and DAN. Adults also exhibited greater cross-network integration, particularly FP-salience and FP-DAN couplings, alongside broader adult-greater effects among memory- and attention-related pairs. During a co-creative AI-assisted conversation, children exhibit a less coherent and integrated control-attention-memory architecture than adults. The combination of similar creativity scores with divergent neural profiles suggests that developmental differences in the implementation of creative cognition may be more pronounced than baseline capacity. This highlights FP-centric pathways and their salience-gated interactions as candidate substrates by which creativity supports goal-directed co-creative dialog with AI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.