MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411182839 · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2025.05.008

The interoceptive origin of reinforcement learning

2025· review· en· W4411182839 on OpenAlexafffund
Lilian Weber, Debbie Yee, Dana M. Small, Frederike H. Petzschner

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Cognitive Sciences · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Institutes of HealthInstitut des Sciences du Cerveau de ToulouseNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaWellcome Trust
KeywordsPsychologyReinforcementCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rewards play a crucial role in sculpting all motivated behavior. Traditionally, research on reinforcement learning has centered on how rewards guide learning and decision-making. Here, we examine the origins of rewards themselves. Specifically, we discuss that the critical signal sustaining reinforcement for food is generated internally and subliminally during the process of digestion. As such, a shift in our understanding of primary rewards as an immediate sensory gratification to a state-dependent evaluation of an action's impact on vital physiological processes is called for. We integrate this perspective into a revised reinforcement learning framework that recognizes the subliminal nature of biological rewards and their dependency on internal states and goals.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.331
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrends in Cognitive SciencesSame topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207