ArticleResearch square2025
What do we actually want to experience? A computational metric for assessing reward values.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07005817 (Ameliorating Social Isolation), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Ameliorating Social Isolation: Identifying Factors That Impede or Facilitate Health-related Social Behavior Change
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People's motivation to have different experiences is predicated on how much they find those experiences rewarding or not, and these reward values are not always fully accessible to our consciousness. In two studies, we demonstrate that using a combination of reinforcement learning (RL) paradigms and computational modeling, we can measure computationally inferred reward values (cRV) of experiences, which do not rely on conscious self-report. Consistent with motivational reward theory, convenience samples of participants exhibited higher cRV (greater reward value of that experience) to viewing positive vs. negative images (subject pool; Study 1) and to viewing more vs. less attractive faces (online sample; Study 2). Further, these cRVs were sensitive to context (familiarity vs. novelty of images, Study 1) and to individual differences (attraction preference, Study 2). Lastly, although cRVs were mildly correlated with explicit self-report values, which demonstrates their validity, they were better predictors of behavior than were the explicit values, which suggests that cRVs are capturing reward processes that are not represented by explicit value judgments. This method of measuring cRV holds great promise for understanding the motivation driving people's choices of a variety of experiences across a wide array of fields of study.
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.