ArticlePLoS biology2022
"Liking" as an early and editable draft of long-run affective value.
Article in PLoS biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blunted anticipation, but not consummation, of food rewards in depression.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Article
- Homeostasis after injury: How intertwined inference and control underpin post-injury pain and behaviour.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Preferences for fat, sugar, and oral-sensory food qualities in monkeys and humans.Physiology & behavior · 2025Review
- The interoceptive origin of reinforcement learning.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025Review
- Neural and Computational Mechanisms of Motivation and Decision-making.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2024Article
- Hidden Reward: Affect and Its Prediction Errors as Windows Into Subjective Value.Current directions in psychological science · 2024Article
- Nutrient-Sensitive Reinforcement Learning in Monkeys.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Homeostatic Reinforcement Theory Accounts for Sodium Appetitive State- and Taste-Dependent Dopamine Responding.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychological and neural distinctions between the technical concepts of "liking" and "wanting" pose important problems for motivated choice for goods. Why could we "want" something that we do not "like," or "like" something but be unwilling to exert effort to acquire it? Here, we suggest a framework for answering these questions through the medium of reinforcement learning. We consider "liking" to provide immediate, but preliminary and ultimately cancellable, information about the true, long-run worth of a good. Such initial estimates, viewed through the lens of what is known as potential-based shaping, help solve the temporally complex learning problems faced by animals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.