We commend the authors’ effort in bridging exploratory and creative behaviors with the recent findings related to their possible neural correlates. The proposed novelty-seeking model (NSM) includes four phases: affinity, activation, evaluation, and commitment. We would like to extend these points by considering an updated version of the optimal-level of arousal (or stimulation) model (henceforth OLA model), traditionally used to explain the exploration/exploitation continuum, and which has recently been proposed to clarify links between curiosity and creativity (Gustafsson, Reference Gustafsson2023; Ibáñez de Aldecoa, Burdett, & Gustafsson, Reference Ibáñez de Aldecoa, Burdett and Gustafsson2022). For instance, the idea of novelty seeking as a biological need, as suggested by the authors, and by others (González-Cutre, Romero-Elías, Jiménez-Loaisa, Beltrán-Carrillo, & Hagger, Reference González-Cutre, Romero-Elías, Jiménez-Loaisa, Beltrán-Carrillo and Hagger2020), has been criticized because an excess of novelty may be overstimulating, perceived as noise, and not necessarily evaluated positively. Reframing the need for novelty as a need for an optimal-level of arousal (or stimulation) would address this issue. We specifically suggest consideration of the “arousal” and “mood changing” potential of stimuli and context in explaining the relationship of curiosity and creativity.

The OLA model hypothesizes that exploratory behaviors are mainly used to maintain an optimal level of arousal (Berlyne, Reference Berlyne1966; Dember & Earl, Reference Dember and Earl1957; Schneirla, Reference Schneirla1959; Zuckerman, Reference Zuckerman1994). Incorporating the concepts of “arousal” potentials of stimuli and contexts into the NSM can provide valuable insights into what determines affinity and activation. In fact, assuming that processing stimuli is costly, the arousal potential of the context in which the stimulus is embedded (i.e., its novelty, complexity, intensity, or surprise features) may have a determining role on exploratory behaviors. For instance, by decreasing overall stimulation, familiar contexts should favor exploration of novelty to get closer to our optimum. In contrast, by increasing overall stimulation, novel contexts should favor exploration of familiarity.

In the same vein, mood changing potentials of stimuli and context can also affect exploratory behaviors by modifying the cognitive resources available and the resulting arousal potentials of encountered stimuli and contexts. For instance, it is well documented that a comforting social environment or a happy mood decrease attraction toward familiarity and favor approach toward novelty in both human (Crockenberg & Leerkes, Reference Crockenberg and Leerkes2004; de Vries, Holland, Chenier, Starr, & Winkielman, Reference de Vries, Holland, Chenier, Starr and Winkielman2010) and non-human animals (Coleman & Mellgren, Reference Coleman and Mellgren1994; Dally, Clayton, & Emery, Reference Dally, Clayton and Emery2008; Forkman, Reference Forkman1991; Moretti, Hentrup, Kotrschal, & Range, Reference Moretti, Hentrup, Kotrschal and Range2015; Stowe, Bugnyar, Heinrich, & Kotrschal, Reference Stowe, Bugnyar, Heinrich and Kotrschal2006; Visalberghi & Addessi, Reference Visalberghi and Addessi2009; Voelkl, Schrauf, & Huber, Reference Voelkl, Schrauf and Huber2006). In contrast, physiological stressors tend to result in withdrawal from novelty/complexity and approach toward familiarity (Griebel, Belzung, Misslin, & Vogel, Reference Griebel, Belzung, Misslin and Vogel1993; Heinrichs & Koob, Reference Heinrichs and Koob1992; Shors & Wood, Reference Shors and Wood1995).

These findings are relevant for the current model as they relate both to the effect of arousal and to the broadening or narrowing of thinking mentioned by the authors in the State of Mind (SoM) Framework. The “Regulatory Focus Theory,” a well-established theoretical model, offers a clearer understanding of the mechanisms underlying these phenomena (Higgins, Reference Higgins1997). This model identifies a “promotion focus” motivation – in which people focus on growth – and a “prevention focus” motivation – in which people focus on maintaining security. Promotion state has been linked to the broadening of mental categories by adopting a more global processing style, while prevention state has been linked to their narrowing (Fredrickson, Reference Fredrickson2001; Friedman & Förster, Reference Friedman and Förster2001). Accordingly, broadening mental categories increases the likelihood that new stimuli integrate pre-existing representations and appear familiar, which would decrease their arousal potential (Förster, Marguc, & Gillebaart, Reference Förster, Marguc and Gillebaart2010). For these reasons, novelty is more attractive in a “promotion” state while familiarity is more appealing in a “prevention” state of mind (Gillebaart, Förster, & Rotteveel, Reference Gillebaart, Förster and Rotteveel2012).

Besides the state of mind, the optimal-level of stimulation model considers any factors affecting the cognitive resources available to predict exploration outcomes. Age is one of such major factors. For instance, while newborns explore familiarity more (Cernoch & Porter, Reference Cernoch and Porter1985; Pascalis, de Schonen, Morton, Deruelle, & Fabre-Grenet, Reference Pascalis, de Schonen, Morton, Deruelle and Fabre-Grenet1995; Schaal, Reference Schaal, Hopkins and Johnson2005), older infants and young children are more attracted toward novelty and complexity (Dovey, Staples, Gibson, & Halford, Reference Dovey, Staples, Gibson and Halford2008; Greenberg & O'Donnell, Reference Greenberg and O'Donnell1972; Hunter, Ames, & Koopman, Reference Hunter, Ames and Koopman1983). Such transition would reflect the broadening of mental categories and cognitive resources acquired through experience and brain maturation (Brennan, Ames, & Moore, Reference Brennan, Ames and Moore1966; DeLoache, Rissman, & Cohen, Reference DeLoache, Rissman and Cohen1978; Greenberg & O'Donnell, Reference Greenberg and O'Donnell1972).

As stated in the NSM, acquiring information through curiosity and creativity can be an intrinsically rewarding state in the evaluation phase of their model. The OLA model would provide here some mechanistic explanation of why this is so. In fact, in order to trigger the intrinsic motivation to explore, a stimulus must have a positive emotional valence which can also result from its arousal potential in addition to previous reinforcements. For instance, a very simple stimulus, usually perceived as boring, could get a very positive valence for an under-stimulated individual in an environment providing few affordances.

Interestingly, such stimuli can also come from internal physical or mental processes. For example, a bored person could engage in repetitive fidgeting movements, active thinking, daydreaming, or creative activities for the sake of the pleasurable stimulation such activity would provoke by itself. We argue that considering creative behaviors as attempts to produce our own stimulation in order to get closer to our optimal level of arousal could be key to relate arousal, curiosity, and creativity. It can help clarify why an exploratory SoM may enable some form of creativity to arise while an exploitatory SoM would promote narrow and specific exploration as stated in the target article. According to such a view, low arousal should favor both diversive curiosity to get more stimulation and divergent thinking to complexify one's environment. In contrast, high arousal would favor both specific curiosity and convergent thinking as both are aimed at solving problems and simplifying one's environment (Gustafsson, Reference Gustafsson2023).

The updated OLA model, by taking into account the “arousal” and the “mood changing” potential of stimuli and context, sheds new light on the NSM model phases. For this reason, we advise tinkering the authors’ novelty-seeking model into an optimal-level of arousal seeking model, which would allow for clearer explanation of curiosity and creativity relationships.