The Psychology and Neuroscience of Curiosity

“…Despite theoretical and empirical work emphasizing a role of expectation violation in curiosity induction, the extent to which information theoretic properties of music influence felt curiosity had not previously been explored. Our results, showing that the IC and entropy of musical events predict curiosity ratings, are in line with the notion that surprise and uncertainty influence feelings of curiosity (Gottlieb et al, 2013; Kidd & Hayden, 2015). They also extend the existing body of work showing that such events can lead to longer processing times (Omigie et al, 2012), greater arousal in listeners (Egermann et al, 2013; Steinbeis et al, 2006), and activation of areas involved in curiosity induction, such as the anterior cingulate gyrus and insula (Omigie, Lehongre, et al, 2020; Omigie, Pearce, et al, 2019).…”

“…These results are consistent with long-standing theories in exploration and curiosity suggesting that learners select material that is neither too simple nor too complex, and therefore potentially optimal for learning (Berlyne, 1960). Our results demonstrate that across early childhood, an attentional preference for intermediate predictability is an organizing principle that guides what information children sample in their environment, contributing to our understanding of curiosity-driven learning processes (Kidd & Hayden, 2015;Oudeyer & Smith, 2016). Because the present paradigm did not directly measure learning, it will be important for future work to examine the impact of this attentional mechanism on downstream learning.…”

“…One interpretation of this is that the objectively same reward from a known tile might be valued less compared to the very same reward obtained from revealing a novel tile. This is in line with various theories of curiosity (Berlyne, 1950;Dubey & Griffiths, 2019;Gottlieb & Oudeyer, 2018;Gottlieb, Oudeyer, Lopes, & Baranes, 2013;Kidd & Hayden, 2015) that posit intrinsic rewards from novel stimuli, which have been linked to the lifespan goal of self-development (Lopes & Oudeyer, 2012). In the present study, curiosity and the intrinsic reward signals associated with revealing new tiles might have contributed to the declining performance towards the end of the search round.…”

“…Despite theoretical and empirical work emphasizing a role of expectation violation in curiosity induction, the extent to which information theoretic properties of music influence felt curiosity had not previously been explored. Our results, showing that the IC and entropy of musical events predict curiosity ratings, are in line with the notion that surprise and uncertainty influence feelings of curiosity (Gottlieb et al, 2013; Kidd & Hayden, 2015). They also extend the existing body of work showing that such events can lead to longer processing times (Omigie et al, 2012), greater arousal in listeners (Egermann et al, 2013; Steinbeis et al, 2006), and activation of areas involved in curiosity induction, such as the anterior cingulate gyrus and insula (Omigie, Lehongre, et al, 2020; Omigie, Pearce, et al, 2019).…”

“…These results are consistent with long-standing theories in exploration and curiosity suggesting that learners select material that is neither too simple nor too complex, and therefore potentially optimal for learning (Berlyne, 1960). Our results demonstrate that across early childhood, an attentional preference for intermediate predictability is an organizing principle that guides what information children sample in their environment, contributing to our understanding of curiosity-driven learning processes (Kidd & Hayden, 2015;Oudeyer & Smith, 2016). Because the present paradigm did not directly measure learning, it will be important for future work to examine the impact of this attentional mechanism on downstream learning.…”

“…One interpretation of this is that the objectively same reward from a known tile might be valued less compared to the very same reward obtained from revealing a novel tile. This is in line with various theories of curiosity (Berlyne, 1950;Dubey & Griffiths, 2019;Gottlieb & Oudeyer, 2018;Gottlieb, Oudeyer, Lopes, & Baranes, 2013;Kidd & Hayden, 2015) that posit intrinsic rewards from novel stimuli, which have been linked to the lifespan goal of self-development (Lopes & Oudeyer, 2012). In the present study, curiosity and the intrinsic reward signals associated with revealing new tiles might have contributed to the declining performance towards the end of the search round.…”

“…Despite theoretical and empirical work emphasizing a role of expectation violation in curiosity induction, the extent to which information theoretic properties of music influence felt curiosity had not previously been explored. Our results, showing that the IC and entropy of musical events predict curiosity ratings, are in line with the notion that surprise and uncertainty influence feelings of curiosity (Gottlieb et al, 2013; Kidd & Hayden, 2015). They also extend the existing body of work showing that such events can lead to longer processing times (Omigie et al, 2012), greater arousal in listeners (Egermann et al, 2013; Steinbeis et al, 2006), and activation of areas involved in curiosity induction, such as the anterior cingulate gyrus and insula (Omigie, Lehongre, et al, 2020; Omigie, Pearce, et al, 2019).…”

“…These results are consistent with long-standing theories in exploration and curiosity suggesting that learners select material that is neither too simple nor too complex, and therefore potentially optimal for learning (Berlyne, 1960). Our results demonstrate that across early childhood, an attentional preference for intermediate predictability is an organizing principle that guides what information children sample in their environment, contributing to our understanding of curiosity-driven learning processes (Kidd & Hayden, 2015;Oudeyer & Smith, 2016). Because the present paradigm did not directly measure learning, it will be important for future work to examine the impact of this attentional mechanism on downstream learning.…”

“…One interpretation of this is that the objectively same reward from a known tile might be valued less compared to the very same reward obtained from revealing a novel tile. This is in line with various theories of curiosity (Berlyne, 1950;Dubey & Griffiths, 2019;Gottlieb & Oudeyer, 2018;Gottlieb, Oudeyer, Lopes, & Baranes, 2013;Kidd & Hayden, 2015) that posit intrinsic rewards from novel stimuli, which have been linked to the lifespan goal of self-development (Lopes & Oudeyer, 2012). In the present study, curiosity and the intrinsic reward signals associated with revealing new tiles might have contributed to the declining performance towards the end of the search round.…”