Cited by 60Psychological and Educational Research StudiesMemory Processes and InfluencesCreativity in Education and Neuroscience

Lighting the wick in the candle of learning: generating a prediction stimulates curiosity

Open access
Brod, Garvin, Breitwieser, Jasmin·2019·npj Science of Learning

Abstract

Curiosity stimulates learning. We tested whether curiosity itself can be stimulated—not by extrinsic rewards but by an intrinsic desire to know whether a prediction holds true. Participants performed a numerical-facts learning task in which they had to generate either a prediction or an example before rating their curiosity and seeing the correct answer. More facts received high-curiosity ratings in the prediction condition, which indicates that generating predictions stimulated curiosity. In turn, high curiosity, compared with low curiosity, was associated with better memory for the correct answer. Concurrent pupillary data revealed that higher curiosity was associated with larger pupil dilation during anticipation of the correct answer. Pupil dilation was further enhanced when participants generated a prediction rather than an example, both during anticipation of the correct answer and in response to seeing it. These results suggest that generating a prediction stimulates curiosity by increasing the relevance of the knowledge gap.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41539-019-0056-y

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Generating predictions leads to higher curiosity ratings than generating examples.

    “It was found that generating predictions led to higher curiosity ratings than generating examples, indicating that generating predictions indeed triggers curiosity.”

    From Predicting as a learning strategy (2021) · cites this paper as Brod & Breitwieser, 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brod, G., & Breitwieser, J.
Affiliations
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • DIPF | Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Brod, Garvin
  • Breitwieser, Jasmin
Venue
npj Science of Learning
Published
2019-10-21
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
17-17
ISSN
2056-7936 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2980624415
Cited by
60
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Science of Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pedocs (German Institute for International Educational Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • peDOCS (cc-by)
Funders
Jacobs Foundation (Research Fellowship)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Educational Research Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
Keywords
curiosity, knowledge gaps, pupil dilation, anticipation, intrinsic motivation, pupillometry

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.

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