Do goldfish like to be informed?

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Most mammalian and avian species tested so far, including humans, prefer foretold over unsignalled future events, even if the information is costly and confers no direct benefit, a phenomenon that has been called paradoxical, or suboptimal choice. It is unclear whether this is an epiphenomenon of taxonomically widespread mechanisms of reinforcement learning, or if information-seeking is a dedicated cognitive trait, perhaps a precursor of human curiosity. We investigate whether a teleost fish that shares basic reinforcement learning mechanisms with birds and mammals also presents such preference, with the aim of dissociating food-reinforced learning from information-seeking. Goldfish chose between two alternatives, both yielding a 50% chance of reward 5s after being chosen. The ‘informative’ alternative caused immediate onset of either of two stimuli (S+ or S-) correlated with the trial’s forthcoming outcome (reward/no reward). Choosing the ‘non-informative’ option, instead triggered either of two uncorrelated stimuli (N1 or N2). Goldfish learned to discriminate between the different contingencies, but did not develop preference for the informative option. This shows that conditioning learning is not always sufficient, and the difference with birds and mammals supports the hypothesis that information-seeking, rather than simple conditioning, causes the paradoxical preference for unusable information shown by the latter.
Full text 1,529 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Most mammalian and avian species tested so far, including humans, prefer foretold over unsignalled future events, even if the information is costly and confers no direct benefit, a phenomenon that has been called paradoxical, or suboptimal choice. It is unclear whether this is an epiphenomenon of taxonomically widespread mechanisms of reinforcement learning, or if information-seeking is a dedicated cognitive trait, perhaps a precursor of human curiosity. We investigate whether a teleost fish that shares basic reinforcement learning mechanisms with birds and mammals also presents such preference, with the aim of dissociating food-reinforced learning from information-seeking. Goldfish chose between two alternatives, both yielding a 50% chance of reward 5s after being chosen. The ‘informative’ alternative caused immediate onset of either of two stimuli (S+ or S-) correlated with the trial’s forthcoming outcome (reward/no reward). Choosing the ‘non-informative’ option, instead triggered either of two uncorrelated stimuli (N1 or N2). Goldfish learned to discriminate between the different contingencies, but did not develop preference for the informative option. This shows that conditioning learning is not always sufficient, and the difference with birds and mammals supports the hypothesis that information-seeking, rather than simple conditioning, causes the paradoxical preference for unusable information shown by the latter. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00