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

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.

Keywords: Education; Human behaviour.

Fig. 1

Generating a prediction enhances curiosity. a More facts received high-curiosity ratings in the prediction condition than in the example condition. Error bars represent within-subject standard error. b The average pupillary response during the anticipation phase was greater in the prediction condition than in the example condition. The average percentage change in pupil diameter relative to the baseline (light gray area) was calculated for the time interval from 1.5 to 4 s after the onset of the anticipation phase (dark gray area)

Fig. 2

Pupil dilations as a measure of curiosity and surprise. a During anticipation of the answer, high-curiosity facts induced greater pupil dilation than low-curiosity facts. b In response to seeing the answer, pupil dilation was greater in the prediction condition than in the example condition, indicating that generating a prediction promotes surprise, but there was no effect of curiosity. The two graphs depict the pupillary time series during the same time window but differ in the baseline windows (beige areas) used to calculate the percentage change in pupil diameter. The baseline was placed around the onset of the anticipation phase for the time series in a and around the onset of the results phase for the time series in b, to ensure that the effects of curiosity in the results phase were not confounded by the preceding pupil dilation during the anticipation phase. Average percentage change of pupil diameter was calculated separately for the two analysis windows (gray areas)

Fig. 3

Schematic overview of the study phase. The two experimental conditions differed only in the generative task at the beginning of each trial: participants had to generate either a prediction for the correct value of X (prediction condition) or an example relevant to the fact (example condition). After this task, they rated their curiosity about the answer on a 10-point visual analog scale (portrayed as a stylized thermometer). Next, they saw the initial question again during a brief delay and finally were shown the correct number