Creativity manifests through abstraction, the linking of previously unrelated or disparate information or variables initiating the emergence of a novel concept or idea. This process of novel thought can occur in many areas, from creative ideation in the visual arts, literature or music to novel technical concepts in fields such as engineering, mathematics and science. “Arts” creativity vs cognitive definitions of creativity are a primary basis of creativity research. However, due to varying definitions and operationalisations of creativity in neuroscience and cognitive psychology research, it is difficult to determine if all studies of creativity are measuring the same thing (Piffer, 2012). Therefore, it is important to determine if there is a relationship between the cognitive outcome measures and creativity, on studies approaching creativity from different perspectives. There is evidence that artists, and people who score highly on indices of creativity have more dense and abundant interhemispheric connections throughout the corpus collosum, as well as increased frontal lobe white matter (Durante & Dunson, 2018; Schlegel et al, 2015; Takeuchi et al, 2010). Theoretically, this should allow for faster processing of information and an increased problem-solving ability, both of which also impact on memory, executive and attentional functions (Kane & Engle, 2002), however the mapping of the neural basis of creativity is often only theoretically associated with neuropsychological cognitive domains based on commonly associated brain regions, rather than having those domains specifically tested and correlated with neuroimaging or neurophysiological findings. Cognitive correlates of creativity have been investigated in many studies however, not in a comprehensive manner and with widely varying methodology. Many studies use creativity as the cognitive outcome rather than neuropsychological cognitive domains such as attention, memory, executive function, processing speed and visuo-spatial function (Ritter & Mostert, 2017; Scott et al., 2004; Vally et al., 2019). A study examining creativity training in university students after a 13-week training course, investigated the effects of the training on cognitive creativity tests, with improvements found in executive function, yet did not measure other neuropsychological cognitive domains (Vally et al, 2019). Additionally, only one subtest of the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS), the Colour Word Interference Test (CWIT), was administered to determine performance on executive function (EF) which is not sufficient to give an accurate representation of executive function (Lippa & Davis, 2010). Due to the lack of a comprehensive review in this area, it is difficult to assess whether the results of these measures correlate with the results of other measures of executive function when determining relationships between improvements in cognitive creativity and executive function. Another study examining the clinical use of creativity training in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by Fusi et al (2019) looked at pre and post-test results for memory (single word), attention (selective, divided, and alternate), executive function (abstract thinking, planning), visuo-spatial function and an overall estimated cognitive status. While they have examined cognitive outcomes more thoroughly than previous studies, the methodology is still lacking a robust assessment of comprehensive cognitive function, as it is still only assessing four out of five cognitive domains in addition to creativity using limited tests. It is clear from a narrative review of the literature, that a synthesis of creativity research is necessary to determine how we should be best measuring creativity in neuroscience research, and what the main cognitive correlates are as determined by neuropsychological testing, rather than using the measure of creativity as a cognitive domain in itself or theorising the cognitive domains based on associated brain regions.