The scarcity heuristic impacts reward processing within the medial-frontal cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objects that are rare are often perceived to be inherently more valuable than objects that are abundant - a bias brought about in part by the scarcity heuristic. In the present study, we sought to test whether perception of rarity impacted reward evaluation within the human medial-frontal cortex. Here, participants played a gambling game in which they flipped rare and abundant 'cards' on a computer screen to win financial rewards while electroencephalographic data were recorded. Unbeknownst to participants, reward outcome and frequency was random and equivalent for both rare and abundant cards; thus, only a perception of scarcity was true. Analysis of the electroencephalographic data indicated that the P300 component of the event-related brain potential differed in amplitude for wins and losses following the selection of rare cards, but not following the selection of abundant cards. Importantly, then, we found that the perception of card rarity impacted reward processing even though reward feedback was independent of and subsequent to card selection. Our data indicate a top-down influence of the scarcity heuristic on reward evaluation, and specifically the processing of reward magnitude, within the human medial-frontal cortex.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".