Studying the relation between temporal reward discounting tasks used in populations with ADHD: a factor analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed at investigating the relationship between tasks that have been used in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to measure choices between smaller immediate and larger delayed rewards: real and hypothetical temporal discounting tasks, and single-choice paradigms. METHODS: Participants were 55 undergraduate psychology students. Tasks included a real and hypothetical version of a temporal discounting (TD) task with choices between a large reward (10 cents) after delays up to 60 seconds, and smaller immediate rewards (2-8 cents); two versions of a hypothetical temporal discounting task with choices between a large reward ($100) after delays up to 120 months, and smaller immediate rewards ($1-$95); a Choice Delay Task with choices between one point now and two points after 30 seconds (one point is worth five cents). RESULTS: Correlation analyses showed that the real and the hypothetical TD tasks with 10 cents were very strongly associated. However, the hypothetical TD tasks with $100 did not correlate with either the real or the hypothetical TD task with 10 cents. Principal component analysis extracted two components: one for small amounts and short delays, and a second one for large rewards and long delays. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal reward discounting is not a uniform construct. Functional brain imaging research could shed more light on unique brain activation patterns associated with different forms of temporal reward discounting.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Maladaptive inter-temporal choices, meaning preference for smaller earlier rewards over larger later rewards, are an important marker of ADHD-related impulsiveness.
“There is a growing and fairly consistent body of evidence that maladaptive inter-temporal choices (i.e., preference for small earlier over larger later rewards), represent an important marker of ADHD-related impulsiveness (Scheres et al., 2010;Sonuga-Barke et al., 2008).”
From Brain activation to cues predicting inescapable delay in adolescent Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: An fMRI pilot study (2012) · cites this paper as Scheres et al., 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 44
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision, American Psychiatric Association.
- Barkley R.A., Edwards G., Laneri M., Fletcher K., Metevia L. (2001) Executive functioning, temporal discounting, and sense of time in adolescents with attention defi cit/hyper- activity disorder (AD/HD) and oppositional defi ant dis- order (ODD). Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 541-546.
- Scheres A., Lee A., Sumiya M. (2008) Temporal reward dis- counting and ADHD: Task and symptom specifi c effects. Journal of Neural Transmission, 115, 221-226.
- Authors
- Scheres, A., Sumiya, M., & Thoeny, A. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Venue
- International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-08-19
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 167-176
- ISSN
- 1049-8931 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-0657
- PMC
- PMC6878257
- OpenAlex
- W2123210545
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (1r03mh074512-01a1)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R03 MH074512, R03 MH074512-01A1, MH074512-01A1)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, delay discounting, delayed rewards, reward magnitude, impulsivity, construct validity, factor structure
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Analysis of Variance, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Choice Behavior, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Reinforcement Schedule, Reward, Task Performance and Analysis, Time Factors, Community Health Planning, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review