Intrinsic functional connections determine how curiosity and prediction errors enhance memory

Abstract

Individuals differ in the way they seek information, acquire knowledge, and form memories. Neural fingerprints of intrinsic functional connectivity distinguish between individuals and predict inter-individual differences in task performance. Both curiosity - the desire to acquire new information - and information prediction errors (IPEs) - the mismatch between information and previous expectations - enhance memory but differ considerably between individuals. The present study assessed whether inter-individual differences in functional connectivity measured using resting-state fMRI determine the extent to which individuals benefit from memory-enhancing effects of curiosity and IPEs. We found a double dissociation between individual differences in mesolimbic functional connectivity, which accounted for curiosity-driven but not IPE-related memory enhancements, and individual differences in cingulo-hippocampal functional connectivity, which predicted IPE-driven but not curiosity-related memory enhancements. These novel findings on how inter-individual differences in dissociable intrinsic functional networks determine memory enhancements stress the need to account for these differences in theoretical frameworks of curiosity and memory.

Anxiety and curiosity in hierarchical models of neural emotion processing—A mini review

“… Eschmann et al (2023b) also investigated whether individual differences in functional connectivity, as measured by resting-state fMRI, determine the extent to which individuals benefit from the memory-enhancing effects of curiosity and information prediction errors (IPEs–the discrepancy between information and expected expectations). The results show that individual differences in bilateral functional connectivity between ACC and left hippocampus determine the degree to which individuals benefit from the memory-enhancing effects of curiosity, but not from the memory enhancements caused by information prediction errors.…”

“…Taken together, these studies can be interpreted as initial support for the hypothesis that anxiety and curiosity are two distinct poles, with clearly distinctive functional meaning (approach vs. withdrawal), yet part of the same affective dimension (e.g., the arousal dimension as suggested by Bischof, 1985 ). Both, studies investigating anxiety ( Comte et al, 2015 ; Eden et al, 2015 ) and studies investigating curiosity ( Eschmann et al, 2023a ), show activity changes within the ACC, a structure known to also be associated with the processing of prediction errors ( Eschmann et al, 2023b ) and conflict monitoring ( Botvinick et al, 2001 ). The ACC is assumed to monitor and evaluate actions and their consequences ( Botvinick et al, 2001 ), which according to the conflict monitoring hypothesis requires a comparison of expectations and actual outcomes.…”

Curiosity and reward after unsuccessful memory recall

“…Following this reasoning, when access to the information is obtained, it may be experienced as rewarding and be evident in subjective ratings of satisfaction (Eschmann et al, 2023;Marvin & Shohamy, 2016). In line with this idea, evidence from a number of neuroimaging studies points to the engagement of the reward circuitry, especially the ventral tegmental area and ventral striatum, as a neural mechanism that is tied to states of curiosity and its influence on behaviour (Gruber et al, 2014;Kang et al, 2009;Lau et al, 2020;Ligneul et al, 2018;Poh et al, 2022).…”