The DOI matches its Crossref record; 109 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 51 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: computational and neural mechanisms
Open accessAbstract
Summary Intelligent animals devote much time and energy to exploring and obtaining information, but the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. We review recent developments on this topic that have emerged from the traditionally separate fields of machine learning, eye movements in natural behavior, and studies of curiosity in psychology and neuroscience. These studies show that exploration may be guided by a family of mechanisms that range from automatic biases toward novelty or surprise, to systematic search for learning progress and information gain in curiosity-driven behavior. In addition, eye movements reflect visual information search in multiple conditions and are amenable for cellular-level investigations, suggesting that the oculomotor system is an excellent model system for understanding information sampling mechanisms.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review integrates machine learning, eye-movement, and curiosity research to argue that information seeking ranges from automatic novelty/surprise biases to targeted search for learning progress and information gain. It proposes the oculomotor system as a model for information sampling and highlights intrinsic rewards and uncertainty monitoring as key open questions.
Key findings
- Information seeking is defined as actions whose primary goal is to obtain information and reduce uncertainty; it can be extrinsically motivated, as when a driver glances at a traffic light, or intrinsically motivated, as in curiosity or interest.
- Task-related gaze is proactively guided by uncertainty: in visuo-manual tasks the eyes move ahead of the hand to collision or target points and wait there, and in a virtual-reality walking study subjects preferentially deployed gaze to oncoming pedestrians with a history of veering onto a collision course.
- Curiosity-like mechanisms include Lowenstein’s information gap hypothesis, illustrated by a mystery novel with 10 equally likely suspects where the reader moves from high entropy to a single culprit, and developmental robotics approaches that reward learning progress rather than absolute competence.
- Novelty, surprise, and uncertainty heuristics help discover new tasks but are inefficient in large open-ended spaces and risk trapping agents in unlearnable tasks; learning-progress systems may support efficient exploration but a quantitative neural response to learning progress has not been demonstrated empirically.
Methods
- Narrative review synthesizing three traditionally separate lines: active learning and exploration in machine learning and robotics, eye movements in natural behavior, and curiosity in psychology and neuroscience.
- No primary empirical sample or new data are reported; the paper uses conceptual and computational examples, including a POMDP traffic-light example, the information gap mystery-novel illustration, and developmental robotics simulations/robots.
- Main analysis is conceptual integration and comparison of mechanisms across fields, not statistical meta-analysis.
Limitations
- The paper states that understanding information-seeking mechanisms is in its infancy, that a quantitative response to learning progress distinct from phasic responses to novelty, surprise, or arousal has not been demonstrated empirically, and that the learning-progress approach entails a complex meta-cognitive architecture awaiting empirical verification.
- The paper also states that it has not been empirically explored to what extent task-related informational eye movements are habitual, immutable aspects of a task versus rapidly responsive to changing epistemic conditions.
- Evident from the text: as a review, it provides no new experimental data, and many claims about intrinsic rewards and their neural implementation remain speculative; the paper itself notes the question of active exploration is vast and cannot be exhaustively covered.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
43 Own interpretation · 27 Not checked yet · 15 No basis given
In the paper
“In well-practiced tasks that involve visuo-manual coordination (such as moving an object to a target point) the eyes move ahead of the hand to critical locations such as potential collision or target points, and wait there until the hand has cleared those locations”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Task-directed search for information through the prism of eye movements > Eye movements reflect active information search
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Johansson, Westling et al. 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Singh et al. (Singh, Lewis et al. 2010) have shown with computer simulations that even if the objective fitness/reward function of an organism is to survive and reproduce, it may be more efficient to evolve a control architecture that encodes an innate surrogate reward function rewarding learning per se.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > The benefits and challenges of information seeking
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Singh, Lewis et al. 2010
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, the eye movements patterns made while acquiring a task differ greatly from those made after learning”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Task-directed search for information through the prism of eye movements > Eye movements reflect active information search
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sailer, Flanagan et al. 2005
- Not checked yetcites Land 2006 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Subjects preferentially deployed gaze to oncoming pedestrians whose trajectory was expected to be uncertain (i.e., who had a history of veering onto a collision course) relative to those who had never shown such deviations.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Task-directed search for information through the prism of eye movements > Eye movements reflect active information search
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jovancevic-Misic and Hayhoe 2009
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Sensory novelty, defined as a small number of stimulus exposures, is known to enhance neural responses throughout visual, frontal and temporal areas”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > Randomness, novelty, surprise and uncertainty
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ranganath and Rainer 2003 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Sensory novelty, defined as a small number of stimulus exposures, is known to enhance neural responses throughout visual, frontal and temporal areas (Ranganath and Rainer 2003) and activate reward responsive dopamine-recipient areas.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > Randomness, novelty, surprise and uncertainty
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ranganath and Rainer 2003 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“information seeking in its many manifestations is related to the ability of an observer to estimate his or her uncertainty and to find strategies that reduce that uncertainty.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Information seeking obeys the imperative to reduce uncertainty and can be extrinsically or intrinsically motivated
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Converging evidence suggests that, when deployed in the service of a task, eye movements may be explained by the simple imperative to sample information in order to reduce uncertainty regarding future states”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Task-directed search for information through the prism of eye movements > Eye movements reflect active information search
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tatler, Hayhoe et al. 2011 source
- Not checked yetcites Friston and Ao 2012
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our focus here is on evaluating recent developments related to this question from three lines of investigation that have remained largely separate – namely, studies of active learning and exploration in the machine learning and robotics fields, studies of eye movements in natural behavior, and studies of curiosity in psychology and neuroscience.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Information seeking in machine learning, psychology and neuroscience
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These observations, together with the fact that eye movements are well investigated at the single neuron level in experimental animals and use value-based decision mechanisms”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Task-directed search for information through the prism of eye movements > Eye movements reflect active information search
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 12
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, the eyes never track the hand, which relies on motor and proprioceptive guidance and, for short periods of time, follows a predictable path; instead, they are strategically deployed to acquire new information.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Task-directed search for information through the prism of eye movements > Eye movements reflect active information search
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One salient fact that emerges regarding this question is the sheer vastness of the learning space, especially given the scarce time and energy available for learning.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > The benefits and challenges of information seeking
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deciding how to explore optimally when searching for strategy is a very difficult question, and is almost intractable in the general case.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Task-directed search for information through the prism of eye movements > Information sampling while searching for a task strategy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A number of processes for open-ended exploration have been described in the literature, which, as we describe below, have individual strengths and weaknesses and may act in complementary fashion to accomplish these goals.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > The benefits and challenges of information seeking
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Information gathering actions are a special type of intermediate step that obey the imperative to reduce uncertainty and adjudicate among competing interpretations.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Task-directed search for information through the prism of eye movements > Information sampling while executing a known task
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that the observers monitor the uncertainty or predictability of external items and use these quantities proactively to deploy gaze”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Task-directed search for information through the prism of eye movements > Eye movements reflect active information search
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Strategies for solving a task, including those for generating informational actions, are not known in advance but must also be learnt.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Task-directed search for information through the prism of eye movements > Information sampling while searching for a task strategy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that, while these processes require significant exploration, they are goal directed in the sense that they seek to maximize a separate, or extrinsic, reward”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Task-directed search for information through the prism of eye movements > Information sampling while searching for a task strategy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the challenge of an information seeking mechanism is to learn efficiently a large repertoire of diverse skills given its limited resources, and avoid being trapped in unlearnable situations.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > The benefits and challenges of information seeking
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly in the cognitive domain, infants must acquire a vast amount of factual knowledge, rules and social skills.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > The benefits and challenges of information seeking
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although using different terminology and methods, these three lines of research grapple with strikingly similar questions and propose overlapping mechanisms.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Information seeking in machine learning, psychology and neuroscience
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The benefits of such a system arise because of the limited cognitive capacities of the agent (i.e., its inability to solve the fitness function directly) (Sorg, Lewis et al. 2010; Lehman and Stanley 2011; Sequeira, Melo et al. 2011) or because information or skills that are not immediately useful may be re-used in the future.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > The benefits and challenges of information seeking
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sorg, Lewis et al. 2010
- Not checked yetcites Lehman and Stanley 2011
- Not checked yetcites Sequeira, Melo et al. 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although exploratory actions can involve physical acts, they are distinct from other motor acts in that their primary goal is not to exert force on the world, but to alter the observer’s epistemic state.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Information seeking obeys the imperative to reduce uncertainty and can be extrinsically or intrinsically motivated
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“eye movements reflect visual information search in multiple conditions and are amenable for cellular-level investigations”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In intrinsically motivated contexts, on the other hand, the search for information is a goal in itself – a process we would intuitively call “curiosity” or “interest”.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Information seeking obeys the imperative to reduce uncertainty and can be extrinsically or intrinsically motivated
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that animals, and particularly humans, seem avidly to seek out information without an apparent ulterior motive suggests that the brain generates intrinsic rewards that assign value to information”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Information seeking obeys the imperative to reduce uncertainty and can be extrinsically or intrinsically motivated
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The brain generates intrinsic rewards related to learning or acquiring information.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This idea resonates with the free-energy principle, which states that the possession of a large array of skills can be useful to avoid future surprises by “anticipating a changing and itinerant world””
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > The benefits and challenges of information seeking
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Friston 2010 source
- Not checked yetcites Friston, Thornton et al. 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A more complex form of “contextual novelty” (also called surprise) has been suggested to account for attentional attraction toward salient events”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > Randomness, novelty, surprise and uncertainty
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boehnke, Berg et al. 2011
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“may be quantified using Bayesian inference as a difference between a prior and posterior world model (Itti and Baldi 2009) or as a high prediction error for high-confidence states (Oudeyer and Kaplan 2007).”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > Randomness, novelty, surprise and uncertainty
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Itti and Baldi 2009 source
- Not checked yetcites Oudeyer and Kaplan 2007
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Just as animals seek to fill gaps in their physical resources (e.g., energy, sex or wealth) they seek to fill gaps in their knowledge by taking learning-oriented actions.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > Information gap hypothesis of curiosity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In neuroscience research, the most commonly considered exploration strategies are based on random action selection or automatic biases toward novel, surprising or uncertain events.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > Randomness, novelty, surprise and uncertainty
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Defined in this way, curiosity can be viewed as a deprivation phenomenon that seeks to fill a need similar to other reference-point phenomena or biological drives.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > Information gap hypothesis of curiosity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This brings us back again to the imperative to minimize uncertainty about the state of the world, and suggests that this imperative is similar to a biological drive.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > Information gap hypothesis of curiosity
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, to define an information gap one has to monitor one’s level of uncertainty, again similar to eye movement control.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > Information gap hypothesis of curiosity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, understanding information seeking requires that we understand how agents monitor their own competence and epistemic states, and specifically how they estimate their uncertainty and generate strategies for reducing that uncertainty.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, eye movements are natural indicators of the brain’s active information search.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“According to the information gap theory, this type of curiosity arises because of a discrepancy between what the observer knows and what he would like to know, where knowledge can be measured with traditional measures of information.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > Information gap hypothesis of curiosity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lowenstein 1994 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, this question requires that we understand the nature of intrinsic rewards that motivate information seeking and learning.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Conclusions
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By virtue of their amenability to neurophysiological investigations, may be an excellent model system for tackling this question, especially if studied in conjunction with computational approaches and the brain’s intrinsic reward and cognitive control mechanisms.”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The brain has intrinsic reward and cognitive control mechanisms.
- Rests on an assumption: Eye movements are amenable to neurophysiological investigations.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“or which respond selectively for behavioral change or the beginning of exploratory episodes (Isoda and Hikosaka 2007; Quilodran, Rothe et al. 2008).”
§ Information seeking, curiosity and attention: computational and neural mechanisms > Curiosity and autonomous exploration > Exploration based on learning progress (LP)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Isoda and Hikosaka 2007
- Not checked yetcites Quilodran, Rothe et al. 2008
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The brain generates intrinsic rewards related to learning or acquiring information.
“it seems necessary to assume that the brain generates intrinsic rewards related to learning or acquiring information (Berlyne 1960).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Biological drives are prompted by salient and easily recognizable signs.
“while biological drives are prompted by salient and easily recognizable signs (e.g., somatic signals for hunger or sex)”
The paper relies on this without support.
In scientific research, the results of an experiment typically open up new questions that had not been foreseen, and it is not possible to estimate in advance the current entropy and the final desired state.
“In scientific research for example, the results of an experiment typically open up new questions that had not been foreseen, and it is not possible to estimate in advance what is the current entropy and the final, desired, state.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The central objective of developmental robotics is to design agents that can explore in open-ended environments and develop autonomously without a pre-programmed trajectory, based on their intrinsic interest.
“The central objective of developmental robotics is to design agents that can explore in open-ended environments and develop autonomously without a pre-programmed trajectory, based on their intrinsic interest.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The brain has intrinsic reward and cognitive control mechanisms.
“the brain’s intrinsic reward and cognitive control mechanisms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Eye movements are amenable to neurophysiological investigations.
“By virtue of their amenability to neurophysiological investigations”
Citations
Cites
Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning
(1989) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-0936 · Cited by 49,178
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.1998.712192 · Cited by 27,225 · cited 1×
“The search may use approaches ranging from reinforcement learning (Kaelbling, Littman et al. 1998; Sutton and Barto 1998; Jens Kober 2012), to stochastic optimization (Spall 2005), evolutionary techniques (Goldberg 1989), or Bayesian optimization (Jones, Schonlau et al.”
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.2004.842673 · Cited by 25,268
Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning
Goldberg, D. E., & Robson, D. (1988) · Cited by 18,391
Goldberg, D. E., & Shakespeare, W. (2002) · Cited by 16,088
The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?
Friston, K. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2787 · Cited by 8,120 · cited 1×
“This idea resonates with the free-energy principle, which states that the possession of a large array of skills can be useful to avoid future surprises by “anticipating a changing and itinerant world” (Friston 2010; Friston, Thornton et al. 2012).”
Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions
Jones, D. R., Schonlau, M., & Welch, W. J. (1998) · Journal of Global Optimization · doi:10.1023/a:1008306431147 · Cited by 8,070
Conflict, arousal, and curiosity.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960) · McGraw-Hill Book Company · doi:10.1037/11164-000 · Cited by 6,018 · cited 1×
“To explain such behaviors and the high degree of motivation associated with them, it seems necessary to assume that the brain generates intrinsic rewards related to learning or acquiring information (Berlyne 1960).”
Marr, D. (1982) · Cumulative Index of Computer Aided Architectural Design · Cited by 5,733
Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning
Cohen, W. W., McCallum, A., & Roweis, S. T. (2008) · Cited by 5,691
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Nguyen, 2013, Socially guided intrinsic motivation for robot learning of motor skills, Auton Robots
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review
Parisi, G. I., Kemker, R., Part, J. L., Kanan, C., & Wermter, S. (2019) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2019.01.012 · Cited by 3,117
The Psychology and Neuroscience of Curiosity
Kidd, C., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010 · Cited by 1,026
Lieder, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2020) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1900061x · Cited by 892
What is consciousness, and could machines have it?
Dehaene, S., Lau, H., & Kouider, S. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aan8871 · Cited by 855
Electronic skins and machine learning for intelligent soft robots
Shih, B., Shah, D., Li, J., Thuruthel, T. G., Park, Y.-L., Iida, F., Bao, Z., Kramer-Bottiglio, R., & Tolley, M. T. (2020) · Science Robotics · doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aaz9239 · Cited by 715
Metadata
- Authors
- Gottlieb, J., Oudeyer, P.-Y., Lopes, M., & Baranes, A.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Gottlieb, Jacqueline
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 585-593
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4193662
- OpenAlex
- W2013830186
- Semantic Scholar
- 61667ccec10748b39e274f2a13fcf9b7c4a9b275
- Cited by
- 784
- References
- 132
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 165 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 68 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 4.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (4r01mh098039-05)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH-098039, R03MH091590)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21DA030095)
- National Eye Institute (P30EY019007)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Educational Research Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- information seeking, curiosity, attention, exploration, novelty bias, surprise, information gain, eye movements, oculomotor system
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Artificial Intelligence, Attention, Brain, Exploratory Behavior, Humans, Information Seeking Behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
