Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pkds5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T16:03:04.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction error minimization as a common computational principle for curiosity and creativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2024

Maxi Becker Open the ORCID record for Maxi Becker [Opens in a new window]  and
Roberto Cabeza Open the ORCID record for Roberto Cabeza [Opens in a new window]
Maxi Becker*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany maxi.becker@gmx.net; maxi.becker@hu-berlin.de
Roberto Cabeza
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany maxi.becker@gmx.net; maxi.becker@hu-berlin.de Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University LSRC Bldg, Durham, NC, USA cabeza@duke.edu https://cabezalab.org/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose expanding the authors’ shared novelty-seeking basis for creativity and curiosity by emphasizing an underlying computational principle: Minimizing prediction errors (mismatch between predictions and incoming data). Curiosity is tied to the anticipation of minimizing prediction errors through future, novel information, whereas creative AHA moments are connected to the actual minimization of prediction errors through current, novel information.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e93
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Becker, M., Wang, X., & Cabeza, R. (2023). Surprise! – Clarifying the link between insight and prediction error [Preprint]. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/tkhn5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danek, A. H., Williams, J., & Wiley, J. (2020). Closing the gap: Connecting sudden representational change to the subjective Aha! Experience in insightful problem solving. Psychological Research, 84, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Ouden, H. E., Kok, P., & De Lange, F. P. (2012). How prediction errors shape perception, attention, and motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubey, R., Ho, M. K., Mehta, H., & Griffiths, T. (2021). Aha! Moments correspond to meta-cognitive prediction errors.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friston, , & Kiebel, S. (2009). Predictive coding under the free-energy principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1211–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friston, K. J., Lin, M., Frith, C. D., Pezzulo, G., Hobson, J. A., & Ondobaka, S. (2017). Active inference, curiosity and insight. Neural Computation, 29(10), 2633–2683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glimcher, P. W. (2011). Understanding dopamine and reinforcement learning: The dopamine reward prediction error hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(supplement_3), 15647–15654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruber, M. J., & 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kizilirmak, J. M., & Becker, M. (2023). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on insight as a memory process: Encoding the solution. In The Routledge International Handbook of Creative Cognition (Vol. 1, p. 22). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savinova, A., & Korovkin, S. (2022). Surprise! Why insightful solution is pleasurable. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartenbeck, P., FitzGerald, T. H., Mathys, C., Dolan, R., & Friston, K. (2015). The dopaminergic midbrain encodes the expected certainty about desired outcomes. Cerebral Cortex, 25(10), 3434–3445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van de Cruys, S., Damiano, C., Boddez, Y., Król, M., Goetschalckx, L., & Wagemans, J. (2021). Visual affects: Linking curiosity, Aha-Erlebnis, and memory through information gain. Cognition, 212, 104698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed