What's the difference in meaning or nuance of a sentence if 'stimulated', 'aroused' or 'excited' are used respectively? (clarified your question)
To "stimulate" is to do things in order to get a response or reaction.
To "arouse" is to CAUSE the other party to GIVE a response or reaction. To provoke.
Hmmmm. First, while all 3 words sound correct in the sentence, I'm not used to seeing "aroused" used in that manner. "Arouse" has more of a passive feel that takes the weight of the person initiating the action and puts it on the direct object (his curiosity). "She 'aroused' his curiosity" makes it sound like she did something that CAUSED HIS curiosity to be interested, all without him being actively conscious of it.
It's a really, really tiny difference if you ask me, but a good one to look into. I would use the non-passive sounding form of "aroused" to make it closer to the other 2 words:
"She also ROUSED his curiosity and opened his mind to other cultures."
"Roused" is a different form of "aroused" which gives the same initiative feel like "stimulated" and "excited".
With words like "A-roused" and "A-wakened" it just feels like the person or subject the verb is used toward gives the sense the subject doesn't have control over how they come to the end result, like they can't help it. "I wake up often" versus "I awake often". Both mean the same but "awake" gives the sense that I came out of slumber by no power of my own. In all honesty, I only hear those word forms in literature, not at all in speaking regularly.
"Excited" seems like the best balance between the other two words as it can be used as an initiative and passive.
I never considered this until you posted. I hope that helps somewhat.
