Submited on: 03 Dec 2010 02:18:43 AM GMT
Published on: 03 Dec 2010 06:01:48 PM GMT
 
You proved that I was right.
Posted by Dr. Sergey Petrov on 16 May 2012 04:01:07 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    From experimental point of view, authors are trying estimate and compare degree of satisfaction one get from getting a question (curiosity) and getting the answer (learning). Emotional side of dealing with information and knowledge is quite close to all actual and potential readers of this and similar articles. There is no doubts that we do have KI and its satisfaction is extremely diversified process, from going to a new restaurant to writing poetry. There are two possibilities to look at the article: consider it disappointing, as there are no surprises: we instinctively know that we are curious, that satisfying one’s curiosity is a pleasure, that more curious people get more pleasure from learning, etc. Another option (that I, personally, would prefer) is get satisfaction from the fact that our intuitive views happen to be true and thank authors for providing the proof.

     

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    No experience in experimental psychology

  • How to cite:  Petrov S .You proved that I was right. [Review of the article 'Curiosity And Pleasure ' by Cabanac M].WebmedCentral 2010;3(5):WMCRW001821
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Professor
Posted by Dr. Anatoly V Temkin on 26 Feb 2011 06:47:15 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Satisfaction of curiosity brings pleasure. Isn’t it obvious? Are psychological experiments needed to prove this obvious statement? Sometimes studying obvious brings unexpected result. It turns out that satisfaction of curiosity is not always pleasant. People rather would not know some things.

     

    But what seems more important is that the kind of pleasure related to curiosity is of an entirely different nature than other kinds of pleasure. Perlovsky, Cabanac, and Cabanac tell us that motivations to search pleasure from curiosity are related to a fundamental human instinct for knowledge. All achievements of human intellect, the authors tell us, are related to this instinct to enjoy curiosity. Even abilities for creating and perceiving the beautiful.

     

    I would prefer if the authors would more elaborate this last statement. Isn’t the beautiful related to sex? Are there similarities between sex and curiosity? Is there indeed such a simple source for all human achievements, including the highest ones? Possibly I should continue reading these authors. Is it a trivial stunt or indeed a revelation?

     

  • Competing interests:
    No, I don't
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I taught a course on a similar topic

  • How to cite:  Temkin A V.Professor[Review of the article 'Curiosity And Pleasure ' by Cabanac M].WebmedCentral 2010;2(2):WMCRW00513
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This article presents a very interesting Perlovsky’s attempt to prove his bold hypothesis, that “curiosity or need for knowledge is a fundamental and ancient motivation on a par with other basic needs, such as sex or food”. This hypothesis is a part of the broader framework of his original Knowledge Instinct theory. It is also in sync with Perlovsky’s persistent interest in aesthetics and emotions (for example, see his recent enlightening article “Musical emotions: Functions, origins, evolution” in the Physics of Life Reviews 7 (2010).

     

    Perlovsky could not find better researchers to combine his efforts with than Prof. Marie-Claude Bonniot-Cabanac and Prof. Michel Cabanac, arguably one of the leading researchers in the field of psychology of Pleasure. I ought to mention that Prof. Cabanac just published English translation of his book on Pleasure: “The Fifth Influence or, The Dialectics of Pleasure“. It is one of the most important books on the subject in decades.

    The article is a valuable contribution to the important subject that (paradoxically) rarely attracts curiosity of scientists for whom curiosity is considered to be the leading sources of their professional motivation and intellectual pleasure. I share high hopes of Prof. Roberts (Reviewer 3) about the role this article can play in the study of curiosity, and agree with his opinion that “right now ideas about curiosity are no better than common sense”. Unfortunately, it is also true about the level of clarity (or rather vagueness) in understanding concepts and terms that authors of this article had to use in order to express their ideas, i.e. instinct, drive, need, emotion, motivation.

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Ovsich, A. J. (1998). "Outlines of the Theory of Choice: Attitude, Desire, Attention, Will". Philosophy of Action section of the proceedings of the 1998 Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Acti/ActiOvsi.htm Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control (ISIC) Held Jointly with the International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation and the Intelligent Systems and Semiotics (ISAS), pp. 503-510. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel4%2F5771%2F15415%2F00713713.pdf%3Farnumber%3D713713&authDecision=-203
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    5th Lanzarote International Scientific Workshop on Pleasure

    (2008, Lanzarote, Las Palmas, Spain)  

    Academic Organiser: Prof. Michel Cabanac    

     

    PARTICIPANTS:

     

    PHYSIOLOGY

    Ekkekakis P.

    Department of Health and Human Performance, Iowa State University, Ames 50011, USA.

    ekkekaki@iastate.edu

     

    Anders Agmo

    Department of Psychology, University of Tromso 

    andersa@psyk.uit.no

     

    MODELING

    Carver Charles S.

    Department of Psychology, University of Miami 

    Ccarver@umiami.ir.miami.edu

    Ovsich A. J.

    Boston College

    ovsich@bc.edu

    CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM

    Salamone John D.

    Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut

    salamone@psych.uconn.edu

    EMOTION
    Pfister. Rudiger.

    Department of Psychology ,University of Lueneburg, Germany

    pfister@uni-lueneburg.de

     

    Burgdorf Jeffrey

    Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University

    j-burgdorf@northwestern.edu

     

    DECISION MAKING

    McFarland D.

    Oxford & Lanzarote

    david_mcfarland_uk@yahoo.com

     

    Cabanac M.

    Laval University, Faculty of Medicine, Quebec, QC G1K7P4, Canada

    michel.cabanac@phs.ulaval.ca

     

    GENERAL AND PHILOSOPHY

    Johnston V. S.

    Department of Psychology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA.vic@crl.nmsu.edu

     

    Warburton D.M.

    Univ Reading, Dept Psychol, Reading RG6 6AL, Berks, UK

    d.m.warburton@reading.ac.uk

  • How to cite:  Ovsich A J.This is a very curious and bold attempt to experimentally prove existence of the need/instinct for knowledge using hedonistic approach.[Review of the article 'Curiosity And Pleasure ' by Cabanac M].WebmedCentral 2010;2(1):WMCRW00412
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
I had a great pleasure to be curious
Posted by Dr. Laurent Brondel on 18 Jan 2011 07:05:19 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    In the paper entitled Curiosity and pleasure, L. Perlovsky, M.-C. Bonniot-Cabanac, and M. Cabanac relate the relationships that exist between pleasantness and curiosity in humans. Such a correlate is fundamental since it extends the role of pleasure/displeasure not only to numerous aspects of physiological regulation and mental motivation (as extensively studied by M Cabanac), but also to cognitive emotions such as curiosity.
    Furthermore, the study brings new arguments to the concept of Knowledge Instinct. Finally, it open the field to a range of questions concerning, for example, the role of pleasantness/unpleasantness in neophobia (negative innate curiosity) and curiosity (seen as a positive innate emotion) and the passage from one to the other by learning.

    The entire questionnaire could be added in the annexes.

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am associated professor in physiology and I do research on food pleasantness (alliesthesia and sensory-specific satiety) 

  • How to cite:  Brondel L .I had a great pleasure to be curious [Review of the article 'Curiosity And Pleasure ' by Cabanac M].WebmedCentral 2010;2(1):WMCRW00386
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Understanding the mechanisms of curiosity
Posted by Dr. Patrick Anselme on 20 Dec 2010 04:51:30 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Only very little has been scientifically written on curiosity. The work – both empirical and theoretical – carried out by L. Perlovsky, M.-C. Bonniot-Cabanac, and M. Cabanac is a significant step in the understanding of what makes us curious to learn about the world. The concept of “knowledge instinct” is original and the experimental procedure used in order to test its main prediction (i.e. curiosity is motivated by pleasure) is both simple and powerful. These data, along with those that have been collected by M. Cabanac for more than 40 years, contribute to enrich our understanding of the role that pleasure plays in motivational and cognitive phenomena.

     

    In further investigations, I think that controlling the degree of previous knowledge with respect to the “curiosity vs. pleasure” protocol might be useful, as the participants’ knowledge of the answers can negatively affect curiosity and pleasure about these answers. In this study, this may explain why significant correlations remain low.

     

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Anselme, P. (2010). The uncertainty processing theory of motivation. Behavioural Brain Research, 208, 291-310.
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Theoretical studies on the role of motivational processes in the ability of the mind/brain system to reduce uncertainty about environment.

  • How to cite:  Anselme P .Understanding the mechanisms of curiosity[Review of the article 'Curiosity And Pleasure ' by Cabanac M].WebmedCentral 2010;1(12):WMCRW00269
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Beginning of understanding of curiosity
Posted by Dr. Seth Roberts on 19 Dec 2010 06:50:01 AM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This paper describes a fascinating new way to learn about curiosity -- having subjects rate how much pleasure/displeasure they get from learning something. Implicit in the paper is the idea that curiosity is like thirst. When we are thirsty, drinking is pleasant; when we are not thirsty, it is less pleasant. When we are curious, learning is pleasant; when we are not curious, learning is less pleasant. Michel Cabanac has done a lot of work along these lines. Perhaps the method used in the paper can be used to understand what makes curiosity larger or smaller. This will be the beginning of our understanding of it. Right now ideas about curiosity are no better than common sense.

     

    It would have been helpful to see what the pleasure/displeasure ratings were -- their average values.

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Roberts, S. (2004). Self-experimentation as a source of new ideas: Self-experimentation as a source of new ideas: Ten examples about sleep, mood, health, and weight. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2xc2h866
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a professor of psychology and I do research heavily influenced by Cabanac's ideas.

  • How to cite:  Roberts S .Beginning of understanding of curiosity[Review of the article 'Curiosity And Pleasure ' by Cabanac M].WebmedCentral 2010;1(12):WMCRW00262
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Perlovsky and colleagues present here an interesting and illuminating analysis of the relation between curiousity or desire to know, and the hedonic pleasure of finding an intellectual answer.   A fundamental question in hedonic psychology and affective neuroscience is whether abstract rewards for curiosity and intellectual pursuits are similar in nature and underlying mechanisms to more basic sensory pleasures.  The answer has major implications for the possibility of a common neural currency shared by all pleasures.

     

    In this clever study and thoughtful paper, Perlovsky,  Bonniot-Cabanac, and Cabanac (a longstanding leader in the scientific study of pleasure) show that discovering the answer to a primed question is reported by people to be hedonicallly pleasant, using a hedonic scale and language similar to how they might describe pleasant sensations.  Perlovsky and colleagues suggest this reflect s the operation of a 'need for knowlege' or 'knowlege instinct' that is primed in a person by asking a question to which he or she does not know the answer.   The person then wishes to know, and finds obtaining the answer to the primed question hedonically satisfying.  Such intellectual satisfactions may indeed tap into the brain circuitry and pleasure processes that evolved to mediate more basic sensory pleasures, as suggested by the authors concept of a common currency for all hedonic events that are experienced as pleasant.   All in all, this is a highly valuable contribution.  

  • Competing interests:
    none
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Professor of psychology and neuroscience

  • How to cite:  Berridge K .Admirable article by Perlovky, Bonniot-Cabanac, and Cabanac on curiosity and pleasure[Review of the article 'Curiosity And Pleasure ' by Cabanac M].WebmedCentral 2010;1(12):WMCRW00254
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse