“Wanting” versus “needing” related value: An fMRI meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumption and its excesses are sometimes explained by imbalance of need or lack of control over "wanting." "Wanting" assigns value to cues that predict rewards, whereas "needing" assigns value to biologically significant stimuli that one is deprived of. Here we aimed at studying how the brain activation patterns related to value of "wanted" stimuli differs from that of "needed" stimuli using activation likelihood estimation neuroimaging meta-analysis approaches. We used the perception of a cue predicting a reward for "wanting" related value and the perception of food stimuli in a hungry state as a model for "needing" related value. We carried out separate, contrasts, and conjunction meta-analyses to identify differences and similarities between "wanting" and "needing" values. Our overall results for "wanting" related value show consistent activation of the ventral tegmental area, striatum, and pallidum, regions that both activate behavior and direct choice, while for "needing" related value, we found an overall consistent activation of the middle insula and to some extent the caudal-ventral putamen, regions that only direct choice. Our study suggests that wanting has more control on consumption and behavioral activation.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it