A Thirst for Knowledge: Grounding Curiosity, Creativity, and Aesthetics in Memory and Reward Neural Systems
Saved in:
| Title: | A Thirst for Knowledge: Grounding Curiosity, Creativity, and Aesthetics in Memory and Reward Neural Systems |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Kenett, Yoed N. (ORCID |
| Source: | Creativity Research Journal. 2023 35(3):412-426. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 15 |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Descriptors: | Creativity, Aesthetics, Personality Traits, Memory, Brain, Information Seeking, Discovery Learning, Problem Solving, Semantics, Neurology, Executive Function, Rewards |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10400419.2023.2165748 |
| ISSN: | 1040-0419 1532-6934 |
| Abstract: | Curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics are typically studied separately. The extent to which they share psychological and neural mechanisms is not well understood, despite all being linked to broader personality characteristics like Openness to Experience and are driven by a desire for information and knowledge. Here, we review evidence and advance the hypothesis that creative and aesthetic experiences depend on curiosity as a driver of information-seeking and exploratory behavior because they are exemplars of situations that highlight gaps in knowledge or require problem finding and solving. At the psychological level, we link curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics to Openness to Experience and to ones' semantic memory. We demonstrate how Openness is a critical personality trait in enhancing curious behaviors, as well as creative and aesthetic acts. Furthermore, we highlight the role of semantic memory in such information-seeking behavior, leading to knowledge acquisition. At the neural level, we examine the neurobiological underpinnings of these constructs in relation to the mesolimbic dopaminergic reward system, as related to information-seeking. Finally, we link creativity and aesthetic experience and discuss how stages of art viewing and making relate to curiosity. Thus, we argue that information-seeking, the key behavior attributed to curiosity, motivates both creative and aesthetic activities. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2023 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1396937 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF_8-Dm7VaccO1LXFrMGlJqAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNNBZdVFyt4QK3h8DwIBEICBmg39TIT7blTMgmzwx3gNHhhEQ-VbpizIrJoGumPpLWhET26HZ0P1dyg6gzmOnSaeaXUcsi3f56m0pbqlJeocuODkIhScblrSKS3ZpMZg3FGXFVeR5CNjZfBmegCZ55z0-VFm4HyaFQJMzxOGkASlRn_iqDTajxjd3_S1tqXYhftL9roJqRsH_yRbI86fP3c4y9oasMd9o43KgJo= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0169951710;7lo01jul.23;2023Aug17.06:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0169951710-1">A Thirst for Knowledge: Grounding Curiosity, Creativity, and Aesthetics in Memory and Reward Neural Systems </title> <sbt id="AN0169951710-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics are typically studied separately. The extent to which they share psychological and neural mechanisms is not well understood, despite all being linked to broader personality characteristics like Openness to Experience and are driven by a desire for information and knowledge. Here, we review evidence and advance the hypothesis that creative and aesthetic experiences depend on curiosity as a driver of information-seeking and exploratory behavior because they are exemplars of situations that highlight gaps in knowledge or require problem finding and solving. At the psychological level, we link curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics to Openness to Experience and to ones' semantic memory. We demonstrate how Openness is a critical personality trait in enhancing curious behaviors, as well as creative and aesthetic acts. Furthermore, we highlight the role of semantic memory in such information-seeking behavior, leading to knowledge acquisition. At the neural level, we examine the neurobiological underpinnings of these constructs in relation to the mesolimbic dopaminergic reward system, as related to information-seeking. Finally, we link creativity and aesthetic experience and discuss how stages of art viewing and making relate to curiosity. Thus, we argue that information-seeking, the key behavior attributed to curiosity, motivates both creative and aesthetic activities.</p> <p>To what extent are curiosity, creativity, and aesthetic experiences related? On the face of it, folk intuitions about these concepts suggest that their connections are obvious: the production of aesthetic objects is itself a creative process; finding a creative solution probably requires some degree of curiosity about what the optimal solution might be; and those who are interested in art (as well as science, travel, nature, etc.) are open and curious about the world. However, although these behaviors appear to share similarities, they are typically studied separately and the extent to which they depend on shared underlying psychological and neural mechanisms is not well understood.</p> <p>The goal of this paper is to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships between curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics: First, we review empirical evidence supporting the argument that curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics depend on shared psychological and neural mechanisms linked to knowledge, memory and reward. Second, we advance the hypothesis that creative and aesthetic experiences depend on curiosity as a driver of information-seeking and exploratory behavior. Third, we argue that creativity and aesthetic experiences can be understood more fully by considering curiosity because they are exemplars of situations that highlight gaps in knowledge or require exploration to identify problems and solve them.</p> <p>Examining curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics in isolation can be challenging because researchers often disagree on their exact definitions. Here, we consider curiosity to be a psychological state that represents a desire to know. This state drives behaviors aimed at acquiring new knowledge and experiences (Gross, Zedelius, &amp; Schooler, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref1">64</reflink>]). We define creativity as the capacity to generate new and useful ideas and products (Runco &amp; Jaeger, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref2">135</reflink>]); a capacity that often involves making new connections between seemingly disparate domains (Kenett &amp; Faust, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref3">90</reflink>]; Mednick, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref4">119</reflink>]). The concept of aesthetics is perhaps the most challenging to define. We operationally define aesthetics as the affective valuations and emotional appraisals of any stimulus such as human faces and bodies, architecture, food, etc. In this paper, we focus primarily on aesthetic experiences involving art, because art objects are a special class of stimuli that are often puzzling and hard to understand. Accordingly, aesthetic experiences of artworks can be deeply influenced by the acquisition of knowledge (Chatterjee &amp; Vartanian, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref5">37</reflink>]) and folk intuitions suggest that curious people are creative and open to aesthetic experiences.</p> <p>These overlapping notions of novelty and knowledge provide hints as to how curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics relate to each other. Clarifying these links is important given that curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics improve learning, education, productivity, and well-being cross individuals and society (Arnone, Grabowski, &amp; Rynd, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>]; Gruber, Gelman, &amp; Ranganath, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref7">65</reflink>]; Kashdan &amp; Yuen, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref8">84</reflink>]; Sakaki, Yagi, &amp; Murayama, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref9">137</reflink>]). Here, we selectively review the literature regarding these constructs by focusing on curiosity as a driver of information-seeking behaviors. Based on this review, we propose the hypothesis that information-seeking, the key behavior attributed to curiosity, motivates both creative and aesthetic activities.</p> <hd id="AN0169951710-3">Curiosity and information seeking</hd> <p>The need to seek information, to find answers, and to pursue knowledge are hallmark characteristics of curiosity. Indeed, many critical scientific discoveries depended on our proclivity to ask "why?" and to <emph>find out</emph> (Hargittai, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref10">67</reflink>]). The desire to seek information most clearly demarcates curiosity from other psychological constructs and occurs when we become aware of a "knowledge gap" between what we currently know and what information we can potentially acquire (Loewenstein, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref11">112</reflink>]).</p> <p>Curiosity is not a monolithic construct (Silvia &amp; Christensen, [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref12">147</reflink>]). It is typically assessed with self-report questionnaires that range from curiosity in social contexts to epistemological needs. For example, two different kinds of motivations can drive the search for information: a drive propelled by pleasure – a positive <emph>liking</emph> of new information; and a drive engendered by feelings of deprivation – a negative <emph>wanting</emph> to receive information to counter a feeling of uncertainty (analogous to FOMO – fear of missing out; Litman, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref13">110</reflink>]). Deprivation theories situate curiosity as a response to mitigate this latter aversive state. Loewenstein ([<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref14">112</reflink>]) argues that when confronted with knowledge gaps, humans estimate the magnitude of these gaps based on assumptions about how much knowledge they currently have and how close they are to acquiring the missing knowledge (referred to as <emph>feeling-of-knowing</emph> judgments). Under this view, curiosity represents a tension that paradoxically intensifies as perceived knowledge gaps become smaller and the feeling-of-knowing becomes stronger. That is, we get more curious when we feel closer to acquiring the knowledge we seek (Loewenstein, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref15">112</reflink>]).</p> <p>Daniel Berlyne's influential writings on curiosity over half a century ago remain relevant today. His <emph>optimal arousal</emph> model proposed that humans adjust their behavior to maintain an optimal level of arousal at which they operate best (Berlyne, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref16">25</reflink>]). According to this model, being under-aroused is an unpleasant, boring state. Animals are motivated to explore and seek novel experiences to increase their arousal. In contrast, exposure to stimuli that are too intense (e.g., highly novel or challenging) over arouse an organism, resulting in avoidance behaviors that reduce arousal back to an optimal level. Curiosity is one motivated state by which people act to increase (seek new experiences) <emph>or</emph> decrease (resolve uncertainty) their arousal to achieve their own internal optimal level.</p> <p>The types of experience and information that people feel curious about can differ, as can the mode by which they acquire information. For example, Berlyne ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref17">24</reflink>]) located curiosity along two dimensions: a perceptual to epistemic axis and a specific to diversive axis. The first dimension refers to the kind of information being sought. Perceptual curiosity is the desire for new sensory stimulation, while epistemic curiosity is the drive for knowledge and is typically aroused by complex ideas. Berlyne's insights show that curiosity is directed at acquiring both concrete (e.g., what does this art look like?) and abstract information (e.g., what does this art mean?).</p> <p>The second dimension refers to the way people seek information. Specific curiosity refers to the pursuit of particular information to close a knowledge gap, whilst diversive curiosity describes a wide-ranging search for the novel. Berlyne's notions of specific and diversive curiosity received recent empirical support. Lydon-Staley, Zhou, Blevins, Zurn, and Bassett ([<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref18">113</reflink>]) used computational network science methods to capture styles of curiosity in the behavioral patterns of participants exploring Wikipedia. Knowledge networks were created in which nodes in the network represented unique Wikipedia pages visited and edges reflected the text similarity between the content of different pages. The authors found two styles of information seeking behavior: hunters (who had specific curiosity) and busybodies (who had diversive curiosity). Hunters developed tight knowledge networks by sampling closely related concepts, while busybodies created loose networks by sampling different, sparsely connected concepts. Hunters were sensitive to feeling deprived of information, while busybodies were joyous explorers.</p> <p>The propensity to seek information as an expression of curiosity is also characterized as a stable personality trait with different dimensions (Silvia &amp; Christensen, [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref19">147</reflink>]). For example, the Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale (Kashdan, Disabato, Goodman, &amp; McKnight, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref20">81</reflink>]; Kashdan et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref21">83</reflink>]) distils curiosity into a multidimensional framework that 1) identifies groups of people who differ along various dimensions and 2) examines how people's personality profiles modulates curious behavior. In line with theories articulated by Berlyne ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref22">24</reflink>]), Loewenstein ([<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref23">112</reflink>]) and Litman ([<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref24">111</reflink>]), the dimensions of curiosity described by Kashdan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref25">81</reflink>]) are <emph>Joyous Exploration</emph> (pleasure in seeking new information), <emph>Deprivation Sensitivity</emph> (aversion to lack of information), <emph>Stress Tolerance</emph> (embrace of doubt arising from new and complex experiences), <emph>Social Curiosity</emph> (interest in other people's thoughts and actions), and <emph>Thrill Seeking</emph> (willingness to take risks and acquire novel experiences). High scores along all of these curiosity dimensions are linked to a greater propensity to seek information.</p> <hd id="AN0169951710-4">Creativity and information seeking</hd> <p>For several decades, creativity was considered difficult to study because it seemed inherently elusive (Beaty, Benedek, Silvia, &amp; Schacter, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref26">15</reflink>]; Glaveanu et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref27">61</reflink>]; Glăveanu &amp; Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref28">62</reflink>]; Kenett et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref29">91</reflink>]; Runco &amp; Jaeger, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref30">135</reflink>]). While creativity is generally defined as the ability to generate novel and useful ideas, how this ability is realized psychologically and neurally is far from understood. One approach proposes that creativity should be studied in relation to more basic cognitive capacities, such as language, memory, or attention and enduring personality traits (Abraham, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>]; Benedek &amp; Fink, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref33">20</reflink>]; Ward, [<reflink idref="bib163" id="ref34">163</reflink>]; Ward, Smith, &amp; Finke, [<reflink idref="bib164" id="ref35">164</reflink>]). On this approach, researchers try to explain creativity by examining critical components of this multi-faceted construct, such as semantic memory and Openness to Experience (Kenett et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref36">91</reflink>]). Importantly, both memory and Openness also seem to play a critical role in curiosity, thus potentially bridging curiosity and creativity.</p> <p>Semantic memory is the cognitive system that stores facts and knowledge (Kumar, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref37">104</reflink>]). Embedded in theories of creativity is the notion that knowledge plays a role in generating creative ideas (Abraham &amp; Bubic, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>]; Kenett, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref39">86</reflink>]; Kenett &amp; Faust, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref40">90</reflink>]). The associative theory of creativity describes the role of semantic memory in the creative process (Mednick, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref41">119</reflink>]). According to this theory, creative thinking involves connecting weakly related concepts in novel and applicable ways: the more distant the concepts are from each other in semantic memory, the more creative the new connection. Furthermore, this theory argues that the semantic memory structure of highly creative people is rich and flexible. Such a structure facilitates deep and broad searches over ones' own memory system (Mednick, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref42">119</reflink>]), which is analogous to the information seeking behavior that is a hallmark of curiosity, albeit directed internally rather than to the external world. Related to our argument, Hills et al. proposed a general exploration theory (Hills, Todd, &amp; Goldstone, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref43">70</reflink>]; Hills, Todd, Lazer, Redish, &amp; Couzin, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref44">71</reflink>]; Todd &amp; Hills, [<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref45">155</reflink>]) that argues for a shared mechanism for both external and internal searches.</p> <p>Computational methods to study knowledge and memory structure in creativity provide empirical support for the associative theory of creativity (Kenett, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref46">86</reflink>]; Kenett &amp; Faust, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref47">90</reflink>]). Highly creative people have richer, more connected and less organized semantic memory structures (Benedek et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]; He et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref49">68</reflink>]; Kenett, Anaki, &amp; Faust, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref50">87</reflink>]; Kenett, Beaty, Silvia, Anaki, &amp; Faust, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref51">89</reflink>]; Ovando-Tellez et al., [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref52">133</reflink>]), allowing them to search through their memory more easily (Kenett, [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref53">132</reflink>]; Kenett &amp; Austerweil, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref54">88</reflink>]) and exhibit greater mental flexibility (Kenett et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref55">92</reflink>]). In a recent study, Bieth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref56">26</reflink>]) applied computational network science methods to empirically examine the impact of solving challenging riddles on how memory might be restructured (see also Durso, Rea, &amp; Dayton, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref57">53</reflink>]). Memory restructuring (i.e., reinterpretation and reorganization of problem-related representations in ones' semantic memory) is considered to be a cognitive mechanism of insight problem solving (Ohlsson, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref58">129</reflink>]; Schilling, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref59">138</reflink>]). Bieth et al. showed that solving riddles successfully related to restructuring of the relations between concepts in solvers' semantic memory relevant to the solution of the riddle. The extent of this restructuring varied in relation to individual differences in creative ability. At the neural level, default and frontal brain regions (Chrysikou, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref60">41</reflink>]; Marron, Berant, Axelrod, &amp; Faust, [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref61">114</reflink>]) are engaged along with temporal brain region activity in creative processing (Shen, Yuan, Liu, &amp; Luo, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref62">144</reflink>]) – such as conceptual expansion (the ability to broaden existing conceptual structures in knowledge; Abraham et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>]; Abraham, Rutter, Bantin, &amp; Hermann, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>])</p> <p>Another major component contributing to creativity is the personality trait of Openness to Experience (Christensen, Kenett, Cotter, Beaty, &amp; Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref65">40</reflink>]; Oleynick et al., [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref66">130</reflink>]), which turns out to be a consistent predictor of creative achievement in the arts and sciences (Feist, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref67">58</reflink>]; Kaufman et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref68">85</reflink>]). Openness to Experience is so strongly linked to creative thought, that some argue that "creativity" could be considered an alternative label for this personality trait (Oleynick et al., [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref69">130</reflink>]). Silvia and Christensen ([<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref70">147</reflink>]) analyzed a battery of Openness to Experience inventories to examine the relationship of curiosity to various facets of the Openness to Experience trait. They found that facets related to curiosity across the various Openness to Experience inventories were intellect (intellectual curiosity and intellectual interests), aesthetic (aesthetic appreciation), and cultural (non-traditionalism, diversity, and variety-seeking) (Silvia &amp; Christensen, [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref71">147</reflink>]). The authors argue that curiosity is a central component of Openness to Experience, which is linked directly to creativity.</p> <p>Open people are original, unconventional, imaginative, intellectual, and creative (Christensen et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref72">40</reflink>]; McCrae, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref73">117</reflink>]). They seek out new experiences and are more sensitive to novelty in experiences that generate interest and evoke pleasure (Fayn, MacCann, Tiliopoulos, &amp; Silvia, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref74">57</reflink>]). Open people engage in activities that encourage the accumulation of information such as reading different genres of literature for pleasure (Finn, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref75">59</reflink>]; McManus &amp; Furnham, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref76">118</reflink>]). In general, Open people are motivated to learn, more likely to explore, and invest effort to acquire different kinds of information (Kashdan, Rose, &amp; Fincham, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref77">82</reflink>]; Silvia &amp; Sanders, [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref78">149</reflink>]; von Stumm, [<reflink idref="bib161" id="ref79">161</reflink>]). Beaty, Kaufman, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref80">16</reflink>]) show that higher Openness is related to heightened functional connectivity within the default mode network (Beaty et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref81">17</reflink>]). Overall, people high in the trait of Openness to Experience actively acquire information that increases their general semantic knowledge (Christensen et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref82">40</reflink>]), an important component for creative expression.</p> <hd id="AN0169951710-5">Aesthetic experiences and information seeking</hd> <p>Finally, we situate aesthetic experience in relation to information seeking. Neuroaesthetics investigates the biological bases of aesthetic experiences (Chatterjee, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref83">34</reflink>]; Nadal &amp; Pearce, [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref84">125</reflink>]; Skov, Vartanian, Martindale, &amp; Berleant, [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref85">150</reflink>]). These experiences involve appraisals of natural objects, artifacts and environments (Brown, Gao, Tisdelle, Eickhoff, &amp; Liotti, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref86">30</reflink>]; Coburn et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref87">45</reflink>]) and are common in everyday life. Aesthetic experiences emerge from "the Aesthetic Triad," which involve interactions between sensory-motor, emotion-valuation, and meaning-knowledge neural systems (Chatterjee, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref88">35</reflink>]; Chatterjee &amp; Vartanian, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref89">37</reflink>]; Shimamura, [<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref90">145</reflink>]).</p> <p>We can position art objects as a special class of aesthetic stimuli because they embody some of the most extreme experiences captured by these three systems: 1) they can involve highly unusual arrangements of perceptual features that are not otherwise captured in the natural world, 2) they can be experienced as profoundly moving, valuable and rewarding, and 3) they can be highly abstract, intellectually challenging and difficult to understand.</p> <p>What do we know about the role of knowledge in aesthetic experiences? Kirk et al. ([<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref91">97</reflink>]) investigated the effects of framing on neural responses. People rated abstract "art-like" images as more attractive if labeled as being from a museum than labeled as generated by a computer. This preference was accompanied by greater neural activity in the medial orbitofrontal and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Thinking an image was a museum piece also produced activity in the entorhinal cortex, suggesting that people's expectations draw on their memories that enhance (or probably also diminish) visual pleasure. Similarly, Lacey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref92">105</reflink>]) found that people's ventral striatum and parts of the orbitofrontal cortex were more responsive to the "art status" than to the actual content of visual images. In addition, knowing the title of artworks can facilitate greater engagement with and deepening of aesthetic experiences (Leder, Carbon, &amp; Ripsas, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref93">108</reflink>]; Millis, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref94">120</reflink>]). Original artworks are valued more than duplicates (Newman &amp; Bloom, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref95">126</reflink>]), consistent with our intuitive dislike for forgeries. Huang, Bridge, Kemp, and Parker ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref96">72</reflink>]) found that people have different neural responses when told that they are looking at an authentic or copied Rembrandt portrait. Authentic portraits evoked orbitofrontal activity, whereas copies evoked neural responses in the frontopolar cortex and the right precuneus. EEG evidence suggests that such sensory and contextual integration occurs very rapidly, within 200–300 ms of seeing artworks (Noguchi &amp; Murota, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref97">127</reflink>]).</p> <p>The implication of these studies is that context and knowledge beyond the sensory qualities of visual images affects people's neural responses in aesthetic experiences. Education in architecture and design can influence our appreciation of the built environment (Kirk, Skov, Hulme, Christensen, &amp; Zeki, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref98">97</reflink>]; Vartanian, Navarrete, Palumbo, &amp; Chatterjee, [<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref99">160</reflink>]). Knowledge of compositional strategies, stylistic conventions and practices bias viewers' attention to engage with objects aesthetically (Seeley, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref100">142</reflink>]). For example, people with some exposure to art appreciate abstract art in a way that art-naïve people can find bewildering.</p> <p>The importance of knowledge and information to aesthetic experiences is exemplified by the way artworks are organized and displayed in museums. Artworks are typically organized categorically according to different time periods, mediums, artists, and themes, which allows visitors to contextualize and make sense of the works they encounter. In addition, text labels provide information linked to each individual work. However, although art museums are often organized in similar ways, not all aesthetic experiences feel alike: whereas some are subtle and fleeting, others can have profound and gripping effects on the person (Cupchik, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref101">47</reflink>]; Konecni, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref102">101</reflink>]). Why is that? Consideration of this issue has become increasingly important as empirical aesthetics extends beyond a focus on transient emotions to intense and even transformative aesthetic experiences that many perceivers actively seek.</p> <p>Leder et al. proposed an information-processing model of aesthetic experience which emerges as a function of information processing along five stages: perception, implicit classification, explicit classification, cognitive mastering and evaluation – ultimately producing aesthetic judgments and emotions as its output (Leder, Belke, Oeberst, &amp; Augustin, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref103">107</reflink>]). According to this model, depth of processing is a function of the extent to which information is processed in later stages of information-processing. This view shares similarities with Graf and Landwehr's dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics (Graf &amp; Landwehr, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref104">63</reflink>]). Stimuli can be processed aesthetically using automatic or controlled processes, with the relative contribution of the two systems determining the depth of aesthetic experience. Specifically, processing performed immediately upon encountering an aesthetic object (i.e., Leder et al. perception and implicit classification stages) is bottom-up and stimulus-driven, giving rise to aesthetic evaluations of pleasure or displeasure. In turn, assuming that the stimulus affords it and if there is sufficient motivation on the part of the perceiver, more elaborate top-down processing involving context, meaning, interpretation and understanding can emerge. Such a dual-process model of aesthetics resonates with dual-process models of creativity, that similarly argue that creative thinking is related to bottom-up, spontaneous generation ideas and top-down controlled, evaluation of these ideas (Chrysikou, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref105">41</reflink>]; Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, &amp; Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref106">98</reflink>]; Sowden, Pringle, &amp; Gabora, [<reflink idref="bib152" id="ref107">152</reflink>]).</p> <p>While it is well recognized that knowledge modulates aesthetic experiences, a critical question for the present discussion is how such knowledge is acquired. Some knowledge is acquired passively, whether by listening to a lecture, or from the familial and cultural environments in which a person happens to live. However, active acquisition of knowledge is driven by a desire to learn – the motivational state underlying epistemic curiosity. Similarly, Openness to Experience might also influence how people experience art. Openness is a predictor of positive aesthetic attitudes and predicts visits to museums, reading literature, and art creation and production (McManus &amp; Furnham, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref108">118</reflink>]) across different cultures (Atari, Afhami, &amp; Mohammadi-Zarghan, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref109">11</reflink>]). Open people are likely to seek information, are more likely to experience awe (Silvia, Fayn, Nusbaum, &amp; Beaty, [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref110">148</reflink>]) and be sensitive to novelty in artworks (Fayn et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref111">57</reflink>]). We propose that curiosity and its links to Openness are likely major drivers of knowledge acquisition that enriches aesthetic experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0169951710-6">Knowledge, memory and executive control</hd> <p>Analogous forms of information-seeking occur in two aspects of creativity: problem finding and problem solving. Problem finding refers to discovering, identifying, and defining problems, and takes place before problem solving begins (Arreola &amp; Reiter-Palmon, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref112">10</reflink>]; Runco &amp; Nemiro, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref113">136</reflink>]). For example, exploratory behaviors in which artists engage while preparing to start a new piece of work predict the quality of the artwork they eventually produce (Csikszentmihalyi &amp; Getzels, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref114">46</reflink>]). On the other hand, as outlined above, solving problems creatively depends on the capacity to make new links between weakly-connected concepts and ideas, and thus depends on searching through one's semantic memory systems (Kenett &amp; Faust, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref115">90</reflink>]; Mednick, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref116">119</reflink>]). The importance of information-seeking to both creative problem finding and problem solving generates the hypothesis that curious people are more adept at commandeering their appetite for information into a capacity for creativity.</p> <p>Similarly, when people confront a challenging or ambiguous piece of art, they recognize a gap in knowledge that keeps them from understanding the art or the intention of the artist. They might be engaged by and enjoy the sensory qualities of the art – its use of color, form and composition – but they also might recognize that there is something they still do not understand about the art. Here, perhaps knowing something about the artist, or the cultural context in which the art was made, or the intent of the artist or analysis by a critic might fill in this gap. Curious people are more likely to seek this information and enrich their aesthetic experience.</p> <p>Constructs such as specific and diversive curiosity also apply to creativity. This relationship is reflected in the hunter and busybody typology proposed by Lydon-Staley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref117">113</reflink>]). If hunters form tight knowledge networks made up of closely related concepts, these people would sample closely related ideas when engaging in creative problem solving. However, if creative thinking is facilitated by the ability to make connections between concepts that are distant in semantic memory, then the busybody style of curiosity that is linked to joyful exploration may produce different and more creative outputs and solutions. Indeed, such a busybody personality implies an appetite for varied new information and may thus directly overlap with openness to experience, which facilitates creative thinking.</p> <p>Epistemic uncertainty is experienced when the recognition of knowledge gaps evokes curiosity, which motivates one to seek information in order to close such gaps and reduce this uncertainty. Similarly, epistemic uncertainty plays a role in creativity and aesthetic experiences. For example, identifying the need for a creative solution to solve a problem, first requires knowing that a gap (similar to a knowledge gap) exists between the current problem and its solution. Further, searching through one's semantic memory in order to make connections between disparate concepts may involve epistemic uncertainty about what the best, most novel, or most applicable solution might be (Jia, Li, &amp; Cao, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref118">78</reflink>]; Sidi, Torgovitsky, Soibelman, Miron-Spektor, &amp; Ackerman, [<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref119">146</reflink>]).</p> <p>A recent study provides some of the first, direct empirical evidence that creative performance is associated with the extent to which people seek information to resolve epistemic uncertainty (Koutstaal, Kedrick, &amp; Gonzalez-Brito, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref120">102</reflink>]). Using an innovative curiosity Q&amp;A paradigm, participants were presented with factual sentence stimuli in which certain pieces of information were implicitly missing (e.g. "Alex Bellos was prompted by his public speaking appearances to create an online survey asking people to report their favorite number. After collecting 30,000 responses, there was a clear favorite."). Participants were then invited to ask questions about the information they received, and their questions were rated for novelty. These questions were categorized as gap-based when they targeted the implicit information gaps in the stimuli (e.g., "What is the most popular favorite number?"), and topic-based when they targeted other, relevant topic information (e.g., "Who is Alex Bellos?"). Finally, participants were given the opportunity to view (or "forage" for) answers to both gap- and topic-based questions. The authors found that the novelty of the questions participants asked correlated with their performance on a <emph>divergent</emph> thinking test of creativity that required the generation of novel solutions. Further, the extent to which participants sought gap-related information in the Q&amp;A task (independent of the novelty of the questions) correlated significantly with their performance on a <emph>convergent</emph> thinking task, which involves finding the correct, optimal solution to a problem. Overall, these results show that active inquiry is a significant predictor of creative thinking (Koutstaal et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref121">102</reflink>]).</p> <p>Curiosity, as a state that motivates search for meaning, likely plays a role in art appreciation. The artist's choice about what information to communicate and how to do so is likely influenced by curiosity that influences their knowledge of the world (epistemic curiosity) and of the various ways in which their intent might be given physical form (perceptual curiosity). It is not yet known if artists vary on different dimensions of curiosity and how these differences influence their choices of content and style. For example, artists with considerable social curiosity might be more likely to make portraits and social scenes, artists inclined toward joyous exploration might be more likely to produce novel ways of depicting the world, and artists with greater stress tolerance might be more likely to produce emotionally expressive paintings.</p> <p>With art perception, having preexisting knowledge or expertise perhaps facilitates experiencing curiosity when confronting a new work of art. As described earlier, the feeling of curiosity increases the closer one becomes to acquiring the missing knowledge. Experts may be more curious to discover layers of meaning in works of art because they are confident of their capacity to understand it. Naïve participants may be less likely to engage with complex works of art if they perceive the knowledge gap to be insurmountable. On the other hand, naïve observers who are curious, perhaps those open to experience or those with greater stress tolerance, might be more likely to seek out the meaning of a painting that seems initially inaccessible. The dimensional structure of curiosity might also help explain why people are drawn to certain kinds of art. Mirroring the choices that artists make in production, perhaps viewers with high degrees of social curiosity are drawn to portraits and social scenes, people who are inclined to joyous exploration might be engage more easily with ambiguous and complex art, and people with stress tolerance might be able to immerse themselves in challenging art and emotionally dense imagery.</p> <p>The role of information and knowledge in curiosity and creativity implicates learning and memory. Curiosity enhances memory for information as it is learned (Duan, Fernández, van Dongen, &amp; Kohn, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref122">52</reflink>]; Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref123">80</reflink>]; Marvin &amp; Shohamy, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref124">115</reflink>]; Wade &amp; Kidd, [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref125">162</reflink>]). At the neural level, curiosity is associated with higher activation in the hippocampus and the parahippocampal gyrus (FitzGibbon, Moll, Carboni, Lee, &amp; Dehghani, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref126">60</reflink>]; Gruber et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref127">65</reflink>]). Moreover, increased hippocampal activity while waiting for the answer to a high-curiosity question and after incorrectly answering a high-curiosity question leads to more accurate recall (Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref128">80</reflink>]). Separately, a large body of work has consistently demonstrated the role of the hippocampus in creativity (Addis, Pan, Musicaro, &amp; Schacter, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref129">7</reflink>]; Benedek et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref130">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref131">23</reflink>]; Ellamil, Dobson, Beeman, &amp; Christoff, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref132">55</reflink>]). Creating new ideas recruits very similar brain structures as when one is recalling known solutions (Benedek et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref133">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref134">23</reflink>]). In fact, remembering can be conceived as a (re)constructive process, and the constructive mechanisms involved in episodic recall may also serve the generation of mental simulations about the future and novel ideas (Beaty, Thakral, Madore, Benedek, &amp; Schacter, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref135">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Dopamine signals drive attentional biases toward stimuli associated with past and future rewards ("reward-based salience"; Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref136">8</reflink>]; Baranes, Oudeyer, &amp; Gottlieb, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref137">14</reflink>]). Activity in the ventral striatum and hippocampus elicited by high-curiosity trivia questions predicts better memory for trivia answers (Gruber et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref138">65</reflink>]). Further, individual differences in the activation of SN/VTA and the hippocampus, predicts the magnitude of curiosity-related memory enhancements (Gruber et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref139">65</reflink>]). Consistent with the fact that dopamine enhances hippocampal memory consolidation (Murayama &amp; Kitagami, [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref140">124</reflink>]), curiosity-based memory enhancement for trivia answers occurs even after delays of 1–3 weeks (Fastrich &amp; Murayama, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref141">56</reflink>]; Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref142">80</reflink>]; Marvin &amp; Shohamy, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref143">115</reflink>]). In sum, curiosity may improve learning by enhancing attention and consolidating memory, processes mediated by dopamine (Gruber &amp; Ranganath, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref144">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>The medial temporal lobe is engaged when memory and knowledge play a role in enhancing aesthetic experiences. For example, Kirk et al. showed that architecture students had greater appreciation for building facades than other students and that this enhanced response was accompanied by greater neural activity in memory related medial temporal structures (Kirk, Skov, Christensen, &amp; Nygaard, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref145">96</reflink>]).</p> <p>Both curiosity and creativity involve executive control. For example, curiosity sometimes involves a tradeoff between the ability to deemphasize the demand for immediate reward in favor of indirect benefits of information. Participants in gambling tasks are often willing to sacrifice part of their reward to receive information sooner about the outcome of a gamble – despite the fact that this information does not change their odds of winning (Cervera, Wang, &amp; Hayden, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref146">32</reflink>]). This process mainly involves classic control brain regions, specifically the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC). Several theories suggest that dACC monitors exploration, and sends information to downstream neural structures that regulate behavior, such as guiding gaze to salient stimuli (Kolling, Behrens, Wittmann, &amp; Rushworth, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref147">100</reflink>]; Shenhav, Botvinick, Matthew, &amp; Cohen, Jonathan, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref148">143</reflink>]). A recent EEG study demonstrated that curiosity about lottery outcomes disinhibits the ACC via the increased amplitude of a "feedback-related negativity" EEG signal that is believed to be related to dopaminergic projections to the ACC (Brydevall, Bennett, Murawski, &amp; Bode, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref149">31</reflink>]). The ACC was also shown to be responsive to anticipation of information during an observing task in monkeys (White et al., [<reflink idref="bib166" id="ref150">166</reflink>]).</p> <p>Neural mechanisms related to cognitive control are linked to various aspects of the creative process (Beaty et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref151">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref152">17</reflink>]; Beaty, Seli, &amp; Schacter, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref153">18</reflink>]; Benedek &amp; Fink, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref154">20</reflink>]; Chrysikou, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref155">41</reflink>]). Extensive research of brain network connectivity related to creativity consistently reveals that the executive control network and the default network, two large-scale brain networks that typically act antagonistically actually increase functional coupling when a person is thinking creatively (Beaty et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref156">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref157">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref158">18</reflink>]; Benedek &amp; Fink, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref159">20</reflink>]; Chrysikou, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref160">41</reflink>]). Since these networks are associated with controlled, evaluative processes and generative, constructive processes, respectively, this connectivity pattern points to a mechanism of how controlled and spontaneous cognitive processes interact more fluidly in creative cognition (Zabelina &amp; Andrews-Hanna, [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref161">168</reflink>]). Finally, brain lesion studies indicate that compromised function of the frontal cortex is typically associated with reduced creative ability, although certain focal lesions or stimulation-induced suppression may also enhance specific aspects of creative cognition (Chrysikou et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref162">42</reflink>]; Kenett, Rosen, Tamez, &amp; Thompson-Schill, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref163">93</reflink>]; Weinberger, Green, &amp; Chrysikou, [<reflink idref="bib165" id="ref164">165</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169951710-7">Predictions and rewards</hd> <p>Creating art may lead to sense of rewarding life fulfillment (Tay, Pawelski, &amp; Keith, [<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref165">153</reflink>]). Such a human need for long-term fulfillment may be driven by curiosity and thus tie together these three constructs in relation to activation of the neural reward system. Satisfying curiosity, engaging in creative acts, and having aesthetic experiences are all rewarding. The enhanced learning (Gruber &amp; Ranganath, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref166">66</reflink>]) driven by curiosity contributes to experiencing reward (Murayama, FitzGibbon, &amp; Sakaki, [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref167">123</reflink>]). The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is recruited during states of cognitive conflict aroused by information gaps (Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, &amp; Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref168">27</reflink>]). This recruitment occurs especially when people make choices about what information they want to receive (Lau, Ozono, Kuratomi, Komiya, &amp; Murayama, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref169">106</reflink>]; Oosterwijk, Snoek, Tekoppele, Engelbert, &amp; Scholte, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref170">131</reflink>]). Appraising one's ability to resolve the gap is linked to neural activity in lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC; Gruber et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref171">65</reflink>]; Jepma, Verdonschot, Van Steenbergen, Rombouts, &amp; Nieuwenhuis, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref172">77</reflink>]; Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref173">80</reflink>]). This region also provides input to dopaminergic midbrain regions (substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area [SN/VTA]). Dopaminergic neuromodulation originating from SN/VTA enhances exploratory behavior and the motivation to seek rewards, including information (Ballard et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref174">12</reflink>]; Bromberg-Martin &amp; Hikosaka, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref175">29</reflink>]; Düzel, Bunzeck, Guitart-Masip, &amp; Düzel, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref176">54</reflink>]). Satisfying curiosity enhances activity in the caudate nucleus and nucleus accumbens (NAcc), consistent with the idea that acquiring information is pleasurable (Gruber et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref177">65</reflink>]; Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref178">80</reflink>]; Ligneul, Mermillod, &amp; Morisseau, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref179">109</reflink>]). Finally, dopaminergic pathways have been directly implicated in relation to variation in Openness to Experience (DeYoung, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref180">49</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref181">50</reflink>]; DeYoung, Peterson, &amp; Higgins, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref182">51</reflink>]; Käckenmester, Bott, &amp; Wacker, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref183">79</reflink>]; Smillie et al., [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref184">151</reflink>]). For example, a recent study demonstrated how the effect of a dopamine blocker sulpiride on a creativity task interacts with individual differences in Openness to Experience (Käckenmester et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref185">79</reflink>])</p> <p>Kang et al. reported activation in the striatum when participants anticipated the answer to a trivia question about which they were curious (Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref186">80</reflink>]) Since then, several studies have reported activation in the midbrain and striatum during anticipation for information in different tasks such as trivia, lottery, and observing (Charpentier, Bromberg-Martin, &amp; Sharot, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref187">33</reflink>]; Gruber et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref188">65</reflink>]; Kobayashi &amp; Hsu, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref189">99</reflink>]). These studies support the idea that curiosity scaffolds the brain's reward regions to drive information-seeking behavior (i.e., behavior that reduces uncertainty about the world; Adcock, Thangavel, Whitfield-Gabrieli, Knutson, &amp; Gabrieli, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref190">6</reflink>]; Hikosaka, Bromberg-Martin, Hong, &amp; Matsumoto, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref191">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Dopamine is also implicated a in creative thinking (Chermahini &amp; Hommel, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref192">38</reflink>]; De Manzano, Cervenka, Karabanov, Farde, &amp; Ullen, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref193">48</reflink>]; Mayseless, Uzefovsky, Shalev, Ebstein, &amp; Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref194">116</reflink>]; Oh, Chesebrough, Erickson, Zhang, &amp; Kounios, [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref195">128</reflink>]; Schuler et al., [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref196">139</reflink>]; Tik et al., [<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref197">154</reflink>]; Zabelina, Colzato, Beeman, &amp; Hommel, [<reflink idref="bib169" id="ref198">169</reflink>]). For example, Mayseless et al. ([<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref199">116</reflink>]) showed that a specific genetic marker of dopamine receptors (the DRD5-7 R allele) relates to lower performance in standard creativity tasks. Conducting a ultra-high magnetic field MRI study while participants performed insight problem-solving tasks, Tik et al. ([<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref200">154</reflink>]) examined the neural correlates of the insight (Aha!) moment – the subjective feeling of relief that occurs when the solution to a problem suddenly emerges into conscious awareness. Subcortical activity changes were associated with these Aha!-moments in the dopaminergic midbrain (VTA, nucleus accumbens and caudate nucleus) and in the bilateral thalamus and hippocampus. Thus, one could hypothesize that the rewarding feeling of relief that occurs when one's curiosity is satisfied is similar to the pleasure one feels when a problem is solved insightfully.</p> <p>The brain's reward systems are also integral to aesthetic experiences, especially when considering beauty (Brielmann &amp; Dayan, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref201">28</reflink>]; Van de Cruys &amp; Wagemans, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref202">157</reflink>]). The pleasure that people derive from looking at beautiful objects taps into our reward circuitry (Kühn &amp; Gallinat, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref203">103</reflink>]). For example, attractive faces activate the fusiform face area (Chatterjee, Thomas, Smith, &amp; Aguirre, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref204">36</reflink>]) and parts of the ventral striatum (Kim, Adolphs, O'Doherty, &amp; Shimojo, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref205">95</reflink>]) even when people are not thinking explicitly about the attractiveness of these faces. The orbito- and medial-frontal cortex, the ventral striatum, anterior cingulate and insula respond to beautiful visual images (Jacobs, Renken, &amp; Cornelissen, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref206">76</reflink>]; Jacobsen, Schubotz, Höfel, &amp; Cramon, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref207">75</reflink>]; Vartanian &amp; Goel, [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref208">158</reflink>]) and the medial orbitofrontal cortex and adjacent cingulate cortex respond to different sources of pleasures including music (Ishizu &amp; Zeki, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref209">74</reflink>]) and even architectural spaces (Vartanian et al., [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref210">159</reflink>]).</p> <p>Beyond the immediate hedonic experience of satisfying curiosity, being creative, and being immersed in aesthetic experiences, the anticipation and predictions of rewards also plays an important role. These processes can be framed within a reinforcement learning perspective that focuses on error prediction, monitoring, and novelty seeking – via dopaminergic pathways (Iigaya et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref211">73</reflink>]; Montague, Dayan, &amp; Sejnowski, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref212">121</reflink>]; Morris et al., [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref213">122</reflink>]; Wittmann, Daw, Seymour, &amp; Dolan, [<reflink idref="bib167" id="ref214">167</reflink>]). A prediction error account suggests that the brain actively generates representations of the world based on past experience and predicts future events based on such a representation (Bar, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref215">13</reflink>]; Kesner, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref216">94</reflink>]). On this account as related to aesthetic experiences such as viewing art (Christensen, Cardillo, &amp; Chatterjee, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref217">39</reflink>]), a mismatch between the sensory information of the viewed piece of art with its conceptual representation can produce a prediction error that propagates across the brain. Such a sensory-conceptual mismatch may lead to an effort to minimize the error by engaging in information-seeking curious behaviors (Kesner, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref218">94</reflink>]; Van de Cruys &amp; Wagemans, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref219">157</reflink>]). The striatum has a mediating role in the coding and valuation of prediction error (Pagnoni, Zink, Montague, &amp; Berns, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref220">134</reflink>]; Schultz, Dayan, &amp; Montague, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref221">140</reflink>]). The propagation of errors from the sensory-motor (i.e., thalamus) and emotion-valuation (i.e., striatum) systems to the meaning-making system may represent the positive (curiosity) or negative (confusion) minimization of the mismatch between sensory input and previous experience (Kesner, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref222">94</reflink>]; Van de Cruys et al., [<reflink idref="bib156" id="ref223">156</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169951710-8">A call to empirically investigate the curiosity-creativity-aesthetics link</hd> <p>While many theoretical discussions link curiosity to creativity and innovation, empirical evidence directly supporting this link is scarce (Gross et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref224">64</reflink>]; Schutte &amp; Malouff, [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref225">141</reflink>]). Research on each respective construct points to mechanistic links, as we have tried to outline, but more research is needed to establish these links. Are perceptual and epistemic curiosity underscored by the same attentional and motivational processes? Are these same processes implemented in the expression of visual and verbal creativity, or scientific and artistic creativity?</p> <p>Gross et al. ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref226">64</reflink>]) highlight specific gaps regarding the link between curiosity and creativity. Specifically, the authors identify methodological limits and scarcity in behavioral and experimental measures of curiosity. The authors argue that these limits minimize the ability to directly and empirically investigate the relation and potential overlap between curiosity and creativity. For example, the relation between epistemic and perceptual curiosity to creative behavior and performance have been supported only by correlational observations (Gross et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref227">64</reflink>]). However, curiosity is currently receiving renewed attention in psychology, and recent studies are beginning to offer new and innovative ways of studying it experimentally. For example, the study by Lydon-Staley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref228">113</reflink>]) offers an example of how curiosity can be studied empirically in an ecologically valid setting (browsing Wikipedia). In addition, the Curiosity Q&amp;A study by Koutstaal et al. ([<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref229">102</reflink>]) provides an innovative paradigm to investigate curiosity empirically that can be adapted to investigate the roles of question-asking and information-seeking in many domains. Future research in this area must clarify the links between curiosity, creativity and aesthetics more explicitly, and these very recent studies offer new methods by which this might be achieved. For example, it may be possible to adapt the Wikipedia study by Lydon-Staley et al. to examine how people explore art museum spaces (real or virtual). Is it possible to identify "hunters" who seek specific information from text labels to understand a particular artist or movement, and "busybodies" who explore museum spaces more freely and attend to whatever captures their attention? Characterizing aesthetically-relevant information seeking makes it possible to explicitly test the hypothesis that art is experienced as more beautiful when you receive information that allows you to better understand it.</p> <p>Further, in the Koustaal ([<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref230">102</reflink>]) study, the Curiosity Q&amp;A task and the creativity tasks they used were completely unrelated. However, it is possible to adapt this paradigm to test the curiosity-creativity link more directly. For example, participants could be presented with limited information about a problem, given the opportunity to ask questions and seek information to deepen their understanding of the problem space, and then asked to generate a creative solution to the problem. Such a task could be designed to explicitly test the hypothesis that the extent to which people seek information about a problem significantly predicts their ability to creatively solve it.</p> <p>Overall, to truly uncover the link between curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics, research needs to move beyond correlational research based on self-reports toward experimental research using manipulations and interventions, capturing these three constructs together. For example, research that manipulates low and high levels of information seeking could examine its impact on creative aesthetic products. Similarly, while we review the similar role of the brains' reward system across these three constructs, no neurocognitive study that we know of has directly examined the role of the reward system in these three constructs at the same time. Finally, given the role of attention in driving information seeking, intervention studies via brain stimulation paradigms can examine the impact of exciting or inhibiting the inferior frontal gyrus (implicated in cognitive control; Chrysikou, Weber, &amp; Thompson-Schill, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref231">44</reflink>]), on information seeking when developing creative aesthetic products. Several studies have shown how brain stimulation over that region can indeed enhance or inhibit the originality of creative responses (Chrysikou et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref232">42</reflink>]; Chrysikou, Morrow, Flohrschutz, &amp; Denney, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref233">43</reflink>]; Kenett et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref234">93</reflink>]). Thus, such research should also be conducted in curiosity and aesthetic experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0169951710-9">Conclusions – curiosity drives creativity and aesthetic experiences</hd> <p>Our brief review of curiosity, creativity, and neuroaesthetics, generates the hypothesis that curiosity drives creativity and aesthetic experiences in several ways. Personality traits that predispose curious people overlap with the propensity to also be creative and be open to aesthetic experiences. We propose that curiosity is a critical driver of creativity and aesthetic experiences. More specifically, we argue that curiosity facilitates the creative problem-finding process in the early stages of the creative process and drives exploratory meaning-making processes during the problem-solving stage. Furthermore, we argue that curiosity influences aesthetic experiences because it motivates behaviors toward understanding stimuli that are complex, abstract, and intellectually challenging. Central to this hypothesis is the role of meaning and knowledge – our semantic memory system. Curiosity drives the acquisition of information in order to close gaps between what is known and not known. This acquisition occurs in different ways and is driven by different motivations. The drive varies by personality traits, and the same traits that make people curious predispose people to creative acts and aesthetic engagements. Indeed, semantic memory has been argued to be the scaffolding of imagination and creativity (Abraham &amp; Bubic, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref235">3</reflink>]), and we extend this argument to aesthetic experiences. The central role of information-seeking in curiosity may underpin the ability to find and solve problems in creative ways by allowing one to seek new connections between disparate concepts within one's own semantic memory system. Furthermore, relieving curiosity, enjoying works of art, and finding creative solutions all engage the brains' reward system in a similar way by evoking a subjective feeling of relief, satisfaction, pleasure, or "aha" moments. Overall, knowledge – stored in semantic memory – offers a rich platform upon which creativity can operate in concert with other systems such as attention and learning. The same semantic memory deepens our aesthetic experiences to penetrate beyond superficial appraisals of objects and artwork.</p> <hd id="AN0169951710-10">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0169951710-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref31" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abraham, A. (2013). The promises and perils of the neuroscience of creativity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 246. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref32" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Abraham, A. (2014). Creative thinking as orchestrated by semantic processing versus cognitive control brain networks [Perspective]. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 95. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00095</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref38" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Abraham, A., &amp; Bubic, A. (2015). Semantic memory as the root of imagination. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 325. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref63" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Abraham, A., Pieritz, K., Thybusch, K., Rutter, B., Kröger, S., Schweckendiek, J., ... Hermann, C. (2012). Creativity and the brain: Uncovering the neural signature of conceptual expansion. Neuropsychologia, 50 (8), 1906 – 1917. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref64" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Abraham, A., Rutter, B., Bantin, T., &amp; Hermann, C. (2018). Creative conceptual expansion: A combined fMRI replication and extension study to examine individual differences in creativity. Neuropsychologia, 118, 29 – 39. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref190" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Adcock, R. A., Thangavel, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Knutson, B., &amp; Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2006). Reward-motivated learning: Mesolimbic activation precedes memory formation. Neuron, 50 (3), 507 – 517. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.03.036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref129" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Addis, D. R., Pan, L., Musicaro, R., &amp; Schacter, D. L. (2016). Divergent thinking and constructing episodic simulations. Memory, 24 (1), 1 – 9. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2014.985591</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref136" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, B. A. (2016). The attention habit: How reward learning shapes attentional selection. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369 (1), 24 – 39. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12957</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Arnone, M. P., Grabowski, B. L., &amp; Rynd, C. P. (1994). Curiosity as a personality variable influencing learning in a learner controlled lesson with and without advisement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (1), 5 – 20. doi: 10.1007/BF02298167</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Arreola, N. J., &amp; Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). The effect of problem construction creativity on solution creativity across multiple everyday problems. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10 (3), 287 – 295. doi: 10.1037/a0040389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Atari, M., Afhami, R., &amp; Mohammadi-Zarghan, S. (2020). Exploring aesthetic fluency: The roles of personality, nature relatedness, and art activities. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14 (1), 125 – 131. doi: 10.1037/aca0000200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ballard, I. C., Murty, V. P., Carter, R. M., MacInnes, J. J., Huettel, S. A., &amp; Adcock, R. A. (2011). Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex drives mesolimbic dopaminergic regions to initiate motivated behavior. Journal of Neuroscience, 31 (28), 10340 – 10346. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0895-11.2011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bar, M. (2007). The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (7), 280 – 289. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.05.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baranes, A., Oudeyer, P.-Y., &amp; Gottlieb, J. (2015). Eye movements reveal epistemic curiosity in human observers. Vision Research, 117, 81 – 90. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2015.10.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P. J., &amp; Schacter, D. L. (2016). Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20 (2), 87 – 95. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaty, R. E., Kaufman, S. B., Benedek, M., Jung, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Jauk, E., ... Silvia, P. J. (2016). Personality and complex brain networks: The role of openness to experience in default network efficiency. Human Brain Mapping, 37 (2), 773 – 779. doi: 10.1002/hbm.23065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaty, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Christensen, A. P., Rosenberg, M. D., Benedek, M., Chen, Q., ... Silvia, P. J. (2018). Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (5), 1087 – 1092. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1713532115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaty, R. E., Seli, P., &amp; Schacter, D. L. (2019). Network neuroscience of creative cognition: Mapping cognitive mechanisms and individual differences in the creative brain. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 22 – 30. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.08.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaty, R. E., Thakral, P. P., Madore, K. P., Benedek, M., &amp; Schacter, D. L. (2018). Core network contributions to remembering the past, imagining the future, and thinking creatively. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30 (12), 1939 – 1951. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benedek, M., &amp; Fink, A. (2019). Toward a neurocognitive framework of creative cognition: The role of memory, attention, and cognitive control. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, I116 – 122. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Fink, A., Koschutnig, K., Reishofer, G., Ebner, F., &amp; Neubauer, A. C. (2014). To create or to recall? Neural mechanisms underlying the generation of creative new ideas. NeuroImage, 88, 125 – 133. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benedek, M., Kenett, Y. N., Umdasch, K., Anaki, D., Faust, M., &amp; Neubauer, A. C. (2017). How semantic memory structure and intelligence contribute to creative thought: A network science approach. Thinking &amp; Reasoning, 23 (2), 158 – 183. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2016.1278034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benedek, M., Schües, T., Beaty, R. E., Jauk, E., Koschutnig, K., Fink, A., &amp; Neubauer, A. C. (2018). To create or to recall original ideas: Brain processes associated with the imagination of novel object uses. Cortex, 99, 93 – 102. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.10.024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45 (3), 180 – 191. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1954.tb01243.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berlyne, D. E. (1960 Conflict, arousal, and curiosity (New York, NY : McGraw-Hill Book Company)doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/11164-000)..</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bieth, T., Kenett, Y. N., Ovando-Tellez, M., Lopez-Persem, A., Lacaux, C., Oudiette, D., &amp; Volle, E. (2021). Dynamic changes in semantic memory structure support successful problem-solving. PsyArXiv. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/38b4w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., &amp; Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108 (3), 624 – 652. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brielmann, A. A., &amp; Dayan, P. (2022). A computational model of aesthetic value. Psychological Review. doi: 10.1037/rev0000337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bromberg-Martin, E. S., &amp; Hikosaka, O. (2009). Midbrain dopamine neurons signal preference for advance information about upcoming rewards. Neuron, 63 (1), 119 – 126. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, S., Gao, X., Tisdelle, L., Eickhoff, S. B., &amp; Liotti, M. (2011). Naturalizing aesthetics: Brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. NeuroImage, 58 (1), 250 – 258. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brydevall, M., Bennett, D., Murawski, C., &amp; Bode, S. (2018). The neural encoding of information prediction errors during non-instrumental information seeking. Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 6134. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-24566-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cervera, R. L., Wang, M. Z., &amp; Hayden, B. Y. (2020). Systems neuroscience of curiosity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 48 – 55. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.06.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charpentier, C. J., Bromberg-Martin, E. S., &amp; Sharot, T. (2018). Valuation of knowledge and ignorance in mesolimbic reward circuitry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (31), E7255 – E7264. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1800547115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chatterjee, A. (2011). Neuroaesthetics: A coming of age story. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 (1), 53 – 62. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21457</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chatterjee, A. (2014). The aesthetic brain: How we evolved to desire beauty and enjoy art. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chatterjee, A., Thomas, A., Smith, S. E., &amp; Aguirre, G. K. (2009). The neural response to facial attractiveness. Neuropsychology, 23 (2), 135 – 143. doi: 10.1037/a0014430</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chatterjee, A., &amp; Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18 (7), 370 – 375. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chermahini, S. A., &amp; Hommel, B. (2010). The (b)link between creativity and dopamine: Spontaneous eye blink rates predict and dissociate divergent and convergent thinking. Cognition, 115 (3), 458 – 465. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christensen, A. P., Cardillo, E. R., &amp; Chatterjee, A. (in press). Can art promote understanding? A review of the psychology and neuroscience of aesthetic cognitivism. Psychology of Aesthetics. Creativity, and the Arts.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christensen, A. P., Kenett, Y. N., Cotter, K. N., Beaty, R. E., &amp; Silvia, P. J. (2018). Remotely close associations: Openness to experience and semantic memory structure. European Journal of Personality, 32 (4), 480 – 492. doi: 10.1002/per.2157</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chrysikou, E. G. (2019). Creativity in and out of (cognitive) control. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 94 – 99. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.09.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chrysikou, E. G., Hamilton, R. H., Coslett, H. B., Datta, A., Bikson, M., &amp; Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2013). Noninvasive transcranial direct current stimulation over the left prefrontal cortex facilitates cognitive flexibility in tool use. Cognitive Neuroscience, 4 (2), 81 – 89. doi: 10.1080/17588928.2013.768221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chrysikou, E. G., Morrow, H. M., Flohrschutz, A., &amp; Denney, L. (2021). Augmenting ideational fluency in a creativity task across multiple transcranial direct current stimulation montages. Scientific Reports, 11 (1), 1 – 11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85804-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chrysikou, E. G., Weber, M. J., &amp; Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2014). A matched filter hypothesis for cognitive control. Neuropsychologia, 62, 341 – 355. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.10.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coburn, A., Vartanian, O., Kenett, Y. N., Nadal, M., Hartung, F., Hayn-Leichsenring, G., ... Chatterjee, A. (2020). Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex, 126, 217 – 241. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.01.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Csikszentmihalyi, M., &amp; Getzels, J. W. (1988). Creativity and problem finding in art. In F. H. Farley &amp; R. W. Neperud (Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art, and art education (pp. 91 – 116). Oxford, UK : Praeger Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cupchik, G. C. (2016). The aesthetics of emotion: Up the down staircase of the mind-body. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Manzano, Ö., Cervenka, S., Karabanov, A., Farde, L., &amp; Ullen, F. (2010). Thinking outside a less intact box: Thalamic dopamine D2 receptor densities are negatively related to psychometric creativity in healthy individuals. PLoS ONE, 5 (5), e10670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010670</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 762. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Openness/intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In M. L. Cooper, R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 4: Personality processes and individual differences (pp. 369 – 399). Washington DC, USA: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/14343-017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., &amp; Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of Openness/Intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73 (4), 825 – 858. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00330.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duan, H., Fernández, G., van Dongen, E., &amp; Kohn, N. (2020). The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on memory formation: Insight from behavioral and imaging study. Brain Structure and Function, 225 (5), 1561 – 1574. doi: 10.1007/s00429-020-02074-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durso, F. T., Rea, C. B., &amp; Dayton, T. (1994). Graph-theoretic confirmation of restructuring during insight. Psychological Science, 5 (2), 94 – 98. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00637.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Düzel, E., Bunzeck, N., Guitart-Masip, M., &amp; Düzel, S. (2010). NOvelty-related motivation of anticipation and exploration by dopamine (NOMAD): Implications for healthy aging. Neuroscience &amp; Biobehavioral Reviews, 34 (5), 660 – 669. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.08.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellamil, M., Dobson, C., Beeman, M., &amp; Christoff, K. (2012). Evaluative and generative modes of thought during the creative process. NeuroImage, 59 (2), 1783 – 1794. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fastrich, G. M., &amp; Murayama, K. (2020). Development of interest and role of choice during sequential knowledge acquisition. Aera Open, 6 (2), 2332858420929981. doi: 10.1177/2332858420929981</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fayn, K., MacCann, C., Tiliopoulos, N., &amp; Silvia, P. J. (2015). Aesthetic emotions and aesthetic people: Openness predicts sensitivity to novelty in the experiences of interest and pleasure. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1877. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01877</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2 (4), 290 – 309. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finn, S. (1997). Origins of media exposure: Linking personality traits to TV, radio, print, and film use. Communication Research, 24 (5), 507 – 529. doi: 10.1177/009365097024005003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> FitzGibbon, L., Moll, H., Carboni, J., Lee, R., &amp; Dehghani, M. (2019). Counterfactual curiosity in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 183, 146 – 157. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.11.022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaveanu, V. P., Hanchett Hanson, M., Baer, J., Barbot, B., Clapp, E. P., Corazza, G. E., ... Lubart, T. (2020). Advancing creativity theory and research: A socio-cultural manifesto. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54 (3), 741 – 745. doi: 10.1002/jocb.395</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glăveanu, V. P., &amp; Kaufman, J. C. (2020). The creativity matrix: Spotlights and blind spots in our understanding of the phenomenon. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54 (4), 884 – 896. doi: 10.1002/jocb.417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graf, L. K., &amp; Landwehr, J. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19 (4), 395 – 410. doi: 10.1177/1088868315574978</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gross, M. E., Zedelius, C. M., &amp; Schooler, J. W. (2020). Cultivating an understanding of curiosity as a seed for creativity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 77 – 82. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., &amp; Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84 (2), 486 – 496. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruber, M. J., &amp; Ranganath, C. (2019). How curiosity enhances hippocampus-dependent memory: The prediction, appraisal, curiosity, and exploration (PACE) framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23 (12), 1014 – 1025. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargittai, I. (2010). Drive and curiosity: What fuels the passion for science. Amherst, New York : Prometheus Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> He, L., Kenett, Y. N., Zhuang, K., Liu, C., Zeng, R., Yan, T., ... Qiu, J. (2021). The relation between semantic memory structure, associative abilities, and verbal and figural creativity. Thinking &amp; Reasoning, 27 (2), 268 – 293. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2020.1819415</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hikosaka, O., Bromberg-Martin, E., Hong, S., &amp; Matsumoto, M. (2008). New insights on the subcortical representation of reward. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18 (2), 203 – 208. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2008.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hills, T. T., Todd, P. M., &amp; Goldstone, R. L. (2007 Priming and conservation between spatial and cognitive search. In D. S. McNamara, &amp; G. Trafton, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 353-358). Nashville, TN : Cognitive Science Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hills, T. T., Todd, P. M., Lazer, D., Redish, A. D., &amp; Couzin, I. D. (2015). Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19 (1), 46 – 54. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.10.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, M., Bridge, H., Kemp, M. J., &amp; Parker, A. J. (2011). Human cortical activity evoked by the assignment of authenticity when viewing works of art. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 134. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iigaya, K., Hauser, T. U., Kurth-Nelson, Z., O'Doherty, J. P., Dayan, P., &amp; Dolan, R. J. (2020). The value of what's to come: Neural mechanisms coupling prediction error and the utility of anticipation. Science Advances, 6 (25), eaba3828. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aba3828</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ishizu, T., &amp; Zeki, S. (2011). Toward a brain-based theory of beauty. PLoS ONE, 6 (7), e21852. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021852</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R. I., Höfel, L., &amp; Cramon, D. Y. V. (2006). Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage, 29 (1), 276 – 285. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs, R. H., Renken, R., &amp; Cornelissen, F. W. (2012). Neural correlates of visual aesthetics–beauty as the coalescence of stimulus and internal state. PLoS ONE, 7 (2), e31248. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jepma, M., Verdonschot, R. G., Van Steenbergen, H., Rombouts, S. A., &amp; Nieuwenhuis, S. (2012). Neural mechanisms underlying the induction and relief of perceptual curiosity. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 5. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2012.00005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jia, X., Li, W., &amp; Cao, L. (2019). The role of metacognitive components in creative thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 (2404). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02404</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Käckenmester, W., Bott, A., &amp; Wacker, J. (2019). Openness to experience predicts dopamine effects on divergent thinking. Personality Neuroscience, 2. doi: 10.1017/pen.2019.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T.-Y., &amp; Camerer, C. F. (2009). The wick in the candle of learning: Epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances memory. Psychological Science, 20 (8), 963 – 973. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02402.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., &amp; McKnight, P. E. (2020). The five-dimensional curiosity scale revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales while separating overt and covert social curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109836. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109836</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., &amp; Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82 (3), 291 – 305. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_05</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kashdan, T. B., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. J., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., &amp; Lazarus, R. (2018). The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 130 – 149. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kashdan, T. B., &amp; Yuen, M. (2007). Whether highly curious students thrive academically depends on perceptions about the school learning environment: A study of Hong Kong adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 31 (4), 260 – 270. doi: 10.1007/s11031-007-9074-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., &amp; DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84 (2), 248 – 258. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenett, Y. N. (2018). Investigating creativity from a semantic network perspective. In Z. Kapoula, E. Volle, J. Renoult, &amp; M. Andreatta, Eds., Exploring Transdisciplinarity in Art and Sciences (pp. 49 – 75). New York, NY : Springer International Publishing doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-76054-4_3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenett, Y. N., Anaki, D., &amp; Faust, M. (2014). Investigating the structure of semantic networks in low and high creative persons. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8 (407), 1 – 16. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenett, Y. N., &amp; Austerweil, J. L. (2016). Examining search processes in low and high creative individuals with random walks Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenett, Y. N., Beaty, R. E., Silvia, P. J., Anaki, D., &amp; Faust, M. (2016). Structure and flexibility: Investigating the relation between the structure of the mental lexicon, fluid intelligence, and creative achievement. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 10 (4), 377 – 388. doi: 10.1037/aca0000056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenett, Y. N., &amp; Faust, M. (2019). A semantic network cartography of the creative mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23 (4), 271 – 274. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.01.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenett, Y. N., Kraemer, D. J. M., Alfred, K. L., Colaizzi, G. A., Cortes, R. A., &amp; Green, A. E. (2020). Developing a neurally informed ontology of creativity measurement. NeuroImage, 221, 117166. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenett, Y. N., Levy, O., Kenett, D. Y., Stanley, H. E., Faust, M., &amp; Havlin, S. (2018). Flexibility of thought in high creative individuals represented by percolation analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (5), 867 – 872. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1717362115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenett, Y. N., Rosen, D. S., Tamez, E. R., &amp; Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2021). Noninvasive brain stimulation to lateral prefrontal cortex alters the novelty of creative idea generation. Cognitive, Affective, &amp; Behavioral Neuroscience, 21 (2), 311 – 326. doi: 10.3758/s13415-021-00869-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kesner, L. (2014). The predictive mind and the experience of visual art work. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1417. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, H., Adolphs, R., O'Doherty, J. P., &amp; Shimojo, S. (2007). Temporal isolation of neural processes underlying face preference decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (46), 18253 – 18258.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirk, U., Skov, M., Christensen, M. S., &amp; Nygaard, N. (2009). Brain correlates of aesthetic expertise: A parametric fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 69 (2), 306 – 315. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.08.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., &amp; Zeki, S. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44 (3), 1125 – 1132. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleinmintz, O. M., Ivancovsky, T., &amp; Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2019). The twofold model of creativity: The neural underpinnings of the generation and evaluation of creative ideas. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 131 – 138. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kobayashi, K., &amp; Hsu, M. (2019). Common neural code for reward and information value. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (26), 13061 – 13066. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1820145116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolling, N., Behrens, T. E., Wittmann, M. K., &amp; Rushworth, M. F. (2016). Multiple signals in anterior cingulate cortex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 37, 36 – 43. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2015.12.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Konecni, V. J. (2005). The aesthetic trinity: Awe, being moved, thrills. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 5 (2), 27 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koutstaal, W., Kedrick, K., &amp; Gonzalez-Brito, J. (2022). Capturing, clarifying, and consolidating the curiosity-creativity connection. Scientific Reports, 12 (1), 1 – 13. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-19694-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kühn, S., &amp; Gallinat, J. (2012). The neural correlates of subjective pleasantness. NeuroImage, 61 (1), 289 – 294. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, A. A. (2021). Semantic memory: A review of methods, models, and current challenges. Psychonomic Bulletun &amp; Review, 28 (1), 40 – 80. doi: 10.3758/s13423-020-01792-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lacey, S., Hagtvedt, H., Patrick, V. M., Anderson, A., Stilla, R., Deshpande, G., &amp; Sathian, K. (2011). Art for reward's sake: Visual art recruits the ventral striatum. Neuroimage, 55 (1), 420 – 433.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lau, J. K. L., Ozono, H., Kuratomi, K., Komiya, A., &amp; Murayama, K. (2020). Shared striatal activity in decisions to satisfy curiosity and hunger at the risk of electric shocks. Nature Human Behaviour, 4 (5), 531 – 543. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0848-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., &amp; Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95 (4), 489 – 508. doi: 10.1348/0007126042369811</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leder, H., Carbon, -C.-C., &amp; Ripsas, A.-L. (2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 121 (2), 176 – 198. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.08.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ligneul, R., Mermillod, M., &amp; Morisseau, T. (2018). From relief to Surprise: Dual control of epistemic curiosity in the human brain. NeuroImage, 181, 490 – 500. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.07.038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Litman, J. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition &amp; Emotion, 19 (6), 793 – 814. doi: 10.1080/02699930541000101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44 (7), 1585 – 1595.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116 (1), 75 – 98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lydon-Staley, D. M., Zhou, D., Blevins, A. S., Zurn, P., &amp; Bassett, D. S. (2021). Hunters, busybodies and the knowledge network building associated with deprivation curiosity. Nature Human Behaviour, 5 (3), 327 – 336. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-00985-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marron, T. R., Berant, E., Axelrod, V., &amp; Faust, M. (2020). Spontaneous cognition and its relationship to human creativity: A functional connectivity study involving a chain free association task. NeuroImage, 220, 117064. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marvin, C. B., &amp; Shohamy, D. (2016). Curiosity and reward: Valence predicts choice and information prediction errors enhance learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145 (3), 266 – 272. doi: 10.1037/xge0000140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayseless, N., Uzefovsky, F., Shalev, I., Ebstein, R. P., &amp; Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2013). The association between creativity and 7R polymorphism in the dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4). Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 502. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00502</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (6), 1258 – 1265. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McManus, I. C., &amp; Furnham, A. (2006). Aesthetic activities and aesthetic attitudes: Influences of education, background and personality on interest and involvement in the arts. British Journal of Psychology, 97 (4), 555 – 587. doi: 10.1348/000712606X101088</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mednick, S.A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69 (3), 220 – 232. doi: 10.1037/h0048850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Millis, K. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1 (3), 320. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.320</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montague, P. R., Dayan, P., &amp; Sejnowski, T. J. (1996). A framework for mesencephalic dopamine systems based on predictive Hebbian learning. Journal of Neuroscience, 16 (5), 1936 – 1947. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-05-01936.1996</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, L. S., Kundu, P., Dowell, N., Mechelmans, D. J., Favre, P., Irvine, M. A., ... Voon, V. (2016). Fronto-striatal organization: Defining functional and microstructural substrates of behavioural flexibility. Cortex, 74, 118 – 133. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murayama, K., FitzGibbon, L., &amp; Sakaki, M. (2019). Process account of curiosity and interest: A reward-learning perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 31 (4), 875 – 895. doi: 10.1007/s10648-019-09499-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murayama, K., &amp; Kitagami, S. (2014). Consolidation power of extrinsic rewards: Reward cues enhance long-term memory for irrelevant past events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143 (1), 15 – 20. doi: 10.1037/a0031992</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nadal, M., &amp; Pearce, M. T. (2011). The Copenhagen Neuroaesthetics conference: Prospects and pitfalls for an emerging field. Brain and Cognition, 76 (1), 172 – 183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newman, G. E., &amp; Bloom, P. (2012). Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141 (3), 558 – 569. doi: 10.1037/a0026035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noguchi, Y., &amp; Murota, M. (2013). Temporal dynamics of neural activity in an integration of visual and contextual information in an aesthetic preference task. Neuropsychologia, 51 (6), 1077 – 1084. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.03.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oh, Y., Chesebrough, C., Erickson, B., Zhang, F., &amp; Kounios, J. (2020). An insight-related neural reward signal. NeuroImage, 214, 116757. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116757</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. Advances in the Psychology of Thinking, 1, 1 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oleynick, V. C., DeYoung, C. G., Hyde, E., Kaufman, S. B., Beaty, R. E., &amp; Silvia, P. J. (2017). Openness/Intellect: The core of the creative personality. In G. J. Fiest, R. Reiter-Palmon, &amp; J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity and personality research (pp. 9 – 27). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oosterwijk, S., Snoek, L., Tekoppele, J., Engelbert, L. H., &amp; Scholte, H. S. (2020). Choosing to view morbid information involves reward circuitry. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 1 – 13. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71662-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ovando-Tellez, M., Benedek, M., Kenett, Y. N., Hills, T. T., Bernard, M., Belo, Y., and Volle, E. (2022). An investigation of the cognitive and neural correlates of semantic memory search related to creative ability. Communications Biology, 5 (1), 604. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03547-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ovando-Tellez, M., Kenett, Y. N., Benedek, M., Bernard, M., Belo, J., Beranger, B., ... Volle, E. (2022). Brain connectivity–based prediction of real-life creativity is mediated by semantic memory structure. Science Advances, 8 (5), eabl4294. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abl4294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pagnoni, G., Zink, C. F., Montague, P. R., &amp; Berns, G. S. (2002). Activity in human ventral striatum locked to errors of reward prediction. Nature Neuroscience, 5 (2), 97 – 98. doi: 10.1038/nn802</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A., &amp; Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 92 – 96. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A., &amp; Nemiro, J. (1994). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16 (4), 235 – 241. doi: 10.1080/02783199409553588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sakaki, M., Yagi, A., &amp; Murayama, K. (2018). Curiosity in old age: A possible key to achieving adaptive aging. Neuroscience &amp; Biobehavioral Reviews, 88, 106 – 116. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.03.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schilling, M. A. (2005). A "small-world" network model of cognitive insight. Creativity Research Journal, 17 (2–3), 131 – 154. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2005.9651475</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schuler, A.-L., Tik, M., Sladky, R., Luft, C. D. B., Hoffmann, A., Woletz, M., ... Windischberger, C. (2019). Modulations in resting state networks of subcortical structures linked to creativity. NeuroImage, 195, 311 – 319. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.03.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schultz, W., Dayan, P., &amp; Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275 (5306), 1593 – 1599. doi: 10.1126/science.275.5306.1593</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutte, N. S., &amp; Malouff, J. M. (2020). A meta-analysis of the relationship between curiosity and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54 (4), 940 – 947. doi: 10.1002/jocb.421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seeley, W. P. (2013). Art, meaning, and perception: A question of methods for a cognitive neuroscience of art. British Journal of Aesthetics, 53 (4), 443 – 460. doi: 10.1093/aesthj/ayt022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shenhav, A., Botvinick, Matthew, M., &amp; Cohen, Jonathan, D. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79 (2), 217 – 240. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shen, W., Yuan, Y., Liu, C., &amp; Luo, J. (2017). The roles of the temporal lobe in creative insight: An integrated review. Thinking &amp; Reasoning, 23 (4), 321 – 375. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2017.1308885</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimamura, A. P. (2012). Towards a science of aesthetics: Issues and ideas. In A. P. Shimamura &amp; S. E. Palmer (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 3 – 30). New York, NY : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sidi, Y., Torgovitsky, I., Soibelman, D., Miron-Spektor, E., &amp; Ackerman, R. (2020). You may be more original than you think: Predictable biases in self-assessment of originality. Acta Psychologica, 203, 103002. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.103002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silvia, P. J., &amp; Christensen, A. P. (2020). Looking up at the curious personality: Individual differences in curiosity and openness to experience. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 1 – 6. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.05.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silvia, P. J., Fayn, K., Nusbaum, E. C., &amp; Beaty, R. E. (2015). Openness to experience and awe in response to nature and music: Personality and profound aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9 (4), 376 – 384. doi: 10.1037/aca0000028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silvia, P. J., &amp; Sanders, C. E. (2010). Why are smart people curious? Fluid intelligence, openness to experience, and interest. Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (3), 242 – 245. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skov, M., Vartanian, O., Martindale, C., &amp; Berleant, A. (2009). Neuroaesthetics. Amityville, NY : Baywood Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smillie, L. D., Bennett, D., Tan, N. P., Sutcliffe, K., Fayn, K., Bode, S., &amp; Wacker, J. (2021). Does openness/intellect predict sensitivity to the reward value of information? Cognitive, Affective, &amp; Behavioral Neuroscience, 21 (5), 993 – 1009. doi: 10.3758/s13415-021-00900-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sowden, P. T., Pringle, A., &amp; Gabora, L. (2014). The shifting sands of creative thinking: Connections to dual-process theory. Thinking &amp; Reasoning, 21 (1), 40 – 60. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2014.885464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tay, L., Pawelski, J. O., &amp; Keith, M. G. (2018). The role of the arts and humanities in human flourishing: A conceptual model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13 (3), 215 – 225. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2017.1279207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tik, M., Sladky, R., Luft, C. D. B., Willinger, D., Hoffmann, A., Banissy, M. J., ... Windischberger, C. (2018). Ultra-high-field fMRI insights on insight: Neural correlates of the Aha!-moment. Human Brain Mapping, 39 (8), 3241 – 3252. doi: 10.1002/hbm.24073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Todd, P. M., &amp; Hills, T. T. (2020). Foraging in Mind. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29 (3), 309 – 315. doi: 10.1177/0963721420915861</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van de Cruys, S., Evers, K., Van der Hallen, R., Van Eylen, L., Boets, B., de-Wit, L., &amp; Wagemans, J. (2014). Precise minds in uncertain worlds: Predictive coding in autism. Psychological Review, 121 (4), 649 – 675. doi: 10.1037/a0037665</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van de Cruys, S., &amp; Wagemans, J. (2011). Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual art. i-Perception, 2 (9), 1035 – 1062. doi: 10.1068/i0466aap</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vartanian, O., &amp; Goel, V. (2004). Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings. NeuroReport, 15 (5), 893 – 897. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200404090-00032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich Lars, B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., ... Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (supplement_2), 10446 – 10453. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301227110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Palumbo, L., &amp; Chatterjee, A. (2021). Individual differences in preference for architectural interiors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 77, 101668. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Stumm, S. (2018). Better open than intellectual: The benefits of investment personality traits for learning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44 (4), 562 – 573. doi: 10.1177/0146167217744526</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wade, S., &amp; Kidd, C. (2019). The role of prior knowledge and curiosity in learning. Psychonomic Bulletin &amp; Review, 26 (4), 1377 – 1387. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01598-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, T. B. (2007). Creative cognition as a window on creativity. Methods, 42 (1), 28 – 37. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., &amp; Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 189 – 212). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinberger, A. B., Green, A. E., &amp; Chrysikou, E. G. (2017). Using transcranial direct current stimulation to enhance creative cognition: Interactions between task, polarity and stimulation site. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11(246. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, J. K., Bromberg-Martin, E. S., Heilbronner, S. R., Zhang, K., Pai, J., Haber, S. N., &amp; Monosov, I. E. (2019). A neural network for information seeking. Nature Communications, 10 (1), 1 – 19. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13135-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wittmann, B. C., Daw, N. D., Seymour, B., &amp; Dolan, R. J. (2008). Striatal activity underlies novelty-based choice in humans. Neuron, 58 (6), 967 – 973. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabelina, D. L., &amp; Andrews-Hanna, J. R. (2016). Dynamic network interactions supporting internally-oriented cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 40, 86 – 93. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2016.06.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabelina, D. L., Colzato, L., Beeman, M., &amp; Hommel, B. (2016). Dopamine and the creative mind: Individual differences in creativity are predicted by interactions between dopamine genes DAT and COMT. PLoS ONE, 11 (1), e0146768. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146768</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Yoed N. Kenett; Stacey Humphries and Anjan Chatterjee</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib147" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib163" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib164" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib155" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib149" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib161" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib150" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib145" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib160" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib152" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib148" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib146" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib162" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib166" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib168" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib165" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib153" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib151" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl128" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl129" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref189"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl130" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl131" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref192"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl132" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref193"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl133" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl134" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl135" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl136" bibid="bib154" firstref="ref197"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl137" bibid="bib169" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl138" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl139" bibid="bib157" firstref="ref202"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl140" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref203"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl141" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref204"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl142" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl143" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl144" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl145" bibid="bib158" firstref="ref208"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl146" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref209"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl147" bibid="bib159" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl148" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref211"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl149" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl150" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl151" bibid="bib167" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl152" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl153" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl154" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl155" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref220"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl156" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl157" bibid="bib156" firstref="ref223"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl158" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref225"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl159" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref231"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl160" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref233"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1396937 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: A Thirst for Knowledge: Grounding Curiosity, Creativity, and Aesthetics in Memory and Reward Neural Systems – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kenett%2C+Yoed+N%2E%22">Kenett, Yoed N.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3872-7689">0000-0003-3872-7689</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Humphries%2C+Stacey%22">Humphries, Stacey</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9681-660X">0000-0001-9681-660X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chatterjee%2C+Anjan%22">Chatterjee, Anjan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9092-8560">0000-0002-9092-8560</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Creativity+Research+Journal%22"><i>Creativity Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2023 35(3):412-426. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 15 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aesthetics%22">Aesthetics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personality+Traits%22">Personality Traits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Memory%22">Memory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Brain%22">Brain</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Seeking%22">Information Seeking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discovery+Learning%22">Discovery Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semantics%22">Semantics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neurology%22">Neurology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Executive+Function%22">Executive Function</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rewards%22">Rewards</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/10400419.2023.2165748 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1040-0419<br />1532-6934 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics are typically studied separately. The extent to which they share psychological and neural mechanisms is not well understood, despite all being linked to broader personality characteristics like Openness to Experience and are driven by a desire for information and knowledge. Here, we review evidence and advance the hypothesis that creative and aesthetic experiences depend on curiosity as a driver of information-seeking and exploratory behavior because they are exemplars of situations that highlight gaps in knowledge or require problem finding and solving. At the psychological level, we link curiosity, creativity, and aesthetics to Openness to Experience and to ones' semantic memory. We demonstrate how Openness is a critical personality trait in enhancing curious behaviors, as well as creative and aesthetic acts. Furthermore, we highlight the role of semantic memory in such information-seeking behavior, leading to knowledge acquisition. At the neural level, we examine the neurobiological underpinnings of these constructs in relation to the mesolimbic dopaminergic reward system, as related to information-seeking. Finally, we link creativity and aesthetic experience and discuss how stages of art viewing and making relate to curiosity. Thus, we argue that information-seeking, the key behavior attributed to curiosity, motivates both creative and aesthetic activities. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1396937 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1396937 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/10400419.2023.2165748 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 15 StartPage: 412 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Creativity Type: general – SubjectFull: Aesthetics Type: general – SubjectFull: Personality Traits Type: general – SubjectFull: Memory Type: general – SubjectFull: Brain Type: general – SubjectFull: Information Seeking Type: general – SubjectFull: Discovery Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: Problem Solving Type: general – SubjectFull: Semantics Type: general – SubjectFull: Neurology Type: general – SubjectFull: Executive Function Type: general – SubjectFull: Rewards Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: A Thirst for Knowledge: Grounding Curiosity, Creativity, and Aesthetics in Memory and Reward Neural Systems Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Kenett, Yoed N. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Humphries, Stacey – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Chatterjee, Anjan IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2023 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1040-0419 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1532-6934 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 35 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Creativity Research Journal Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
