The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Wick in the Candle of Learning: Epistemic Curiosity Activates Reward Circuitry and Enhances Memory
Abstract
Curiosity has been described as a desire for learning and knowledge, but its underlying mechanisms are not well understood. We scanned subjects with functional magnetic resonance imaging while they read trivia questions. The level of curiosity when reading questions was correlated with activity in caudate regions previously suggested to be involved in anticipated reward. This finding led to a behavioral study, which showed that subjects spent more scarce resources (either limited tokens or waiting time) to find out answers when they were more curious. The functional imaging also showed that curiosity increased activity in memory areas when subjects guessed incorrectly, which suggests that curiosity may enhance memory for surprising new information. This prediction about memory enhancement was confirmed in a behavioral study: Higher curiosity in an initial session was correlated with better recall of surprising answers 1 to 2 weeks later.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“M. J. Kang, Hsu, Krajbich, Loewenstein, McClure, Wang, and Camerer (2009) found that the higher participants rated their curiosity about a question answered incorrectly, the more likely they were to recall the correct answer on a surprise test two weeks later.”
From The benefit of generating errors during learning (2014) · cites this paper as M. J. Kang, Hsu, Krajbich, Loewenstein, McClure, Wang, and Camerer (2009)
In the citing paper
“Curiosity has been shown to follow an inverted-U-shaped function of confidence in the prediction (e.g., Kang et al., 2009).”
From Predicting as a learning strategy (2021) · cites this paper as Kang et al., 2009
Citations
Cites
Brainard, D. H. (1997) · Spatial Vision · doi:10.1163/156856897x00357 · Cited by 20,012 · cited 2×
“The two sessions in Experiment 2 were conducted and analyzed in Matlab (Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA) using the Psychophysics Toolbox (Brainard, 1997) and the Eyelink Toolbox (Cornelissen, Peters, & Palmer, 2002).”
Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: A general linear approach
Friston, K. J., Holmes, A. P., Worsley, K. J., Poline, J. ‐., Frith, C. D., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1994) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.460020402 · Cited by 9,688
Thresholding of statistical maps in functional neuroimaging using the false discovery rate
Genovese, C. R., Lazar, N. A., & Nichols, T. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.1037 · Cited by 4,923
Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions
Panksepp, J. (1998) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195096736.001.0001 · Cited by 4,428
(1998) · Cited by 4,012
Dopamine, learning and motivation.
Wise, R. A. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1406 · Cited by 3,379 · cited 1×
“A reward is an object or event that elicits approach and is worked for (Wise, 2004).”
Anterior Cingulate Conflict Monitoring and Adjustments in Control
Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1089910 · Cited by 2,891
The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation.
Loewenstein, G. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 · Cited by 2,738 · cited 7×
“Philosophers and psychologists have described curiosity as an appetite for knowledge, a drive like hunger and thirst (Loewenstein, 1994), the hunger pang of an ‘‘info-vore’’ (Biederman & Vessel, 2006, p. 247), and ‘‘the wick in the candle of learning’’ (William Arthur Ward, cited by Wikiquote,…”
InfluentialSelf-citationAnticipation of Increasing Monetary Reward Selectively Recruits Nucleus Accumbens
Knutson, B., Adams, C. M., Fong, G. W., & Hommer, D. (2001) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.21-16-j0002.2001 · Cited by 2,244
Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources.
Beatty, J. (1982) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.276 · Cited by 1,959 · cited 2×
“Because pupil dilation is known to be linked to arousal, attention, interest, and cognitive effort (Beatty, 1982; Hess & Polt, 1960), and because anticipatory pupillary responses increase following a stimulus that predicts rewards (O’Doherty, Dayan, Friston, Critchley, & Dolan, 2003), the observed…”
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Wikiquote., 2008, William Arthur Ward
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: computational and neural mechanisms
Gottlieb, J., Oudeyer, P.-Y., Lopes, M., & Baranes, A. (2013) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.001 · Cited by 784
Revisiting the Conceptualization, Measurement, and Generation of Interest
RENNINGER, K. A., & HIDI, S. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587723 · Cited by 786
“Fifth, interest has a physiological/neurological basis; brain activations differ when a learner is and is not engaged with interest (e.g., Hidi, 2006; Kang et al., 2009; Palmer, 2009; Panksepp, 1998).”
InfluentialStates of Curiosity Modulate Hippocampus-Dependent Learning via the Dopaminergic Circuit
Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060 · Cited by 812
“Participants recalled significantly more answers to high curiosity questions, compared to low curiosity questions (70.6% SE= ± 2.60 vs. 54.1% SE= ± 3.04; paired-sample t (17) =5.64, p <0.001; Figure 3A) replicating earlier findings (Kang et al., 2009).”
InfluentialThe Emerging Neuroscience of Intrinsic Motivation: A New Frontier in Self-Determination Research
Di Domenico, S. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2017) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00145 · Cited by 542
“The curiosity studies by Kang et al. (2009) and Gruber et al. (2014) found greater activity within the lateral PFC during curiosity-inducing questions.”
BackgroundMethodResult
Metadata
- Authors
- Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T.-Y., & Camerer, C. F.
- Affiliations
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- National Taiwan University (TW)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 963-973
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2104225738
- Cited by
- 882
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 74 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 114 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 14.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- 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, caudate nucleus, reward anticipation, trivia questions, memory enhancement, surprise, resource allocation, waiting time, token allocation
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Arousal, Attention, Brain, Caudate Nucleus, Exploratory Behavior, Female, Frontal Lobe, Globus Pallidus, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motivation, Oxygen, Putamen, Reading, Mental Recall, Reward, Prefrontal Cortex, Parahippocampal Gyrus, Young Adult
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
