The Value of Numbers in Economic Rewards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has identified a distributed network of neural systems involved in appraising the value of rewards, such as when winning $100 versus $1. These studies, however, confounded monetary value and the number used to represent it, which leads to the possibility that some elements in the network may be specialized for processing numeric rather than monetary value. To test this hypothesis, we manipulated numeric magnitude and units to construct a range of economic rewards for simple decisions (e.g., 1¢, $1, 100¢, $100). Consistent with previous research in numerical cognition, results showed that blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) activity in intraparietal sulcus was correlated with changes in numeric magnitude, independent of monetary value, whereas activity in orbitofrontal cortex was correlated with monetary value, independent of numeric magnitude. Finally, region-of-interest analyses revealed that the BOLD response to numeric magnitude, but not monetary value, described a compressive function. Together, these findings highlight the importance of numerical cognition for understanding how the brain processes monetary rewards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".