Cited by 157Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentTreatment of Major DepressionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Diminished effort on a progressive ratio task in both unipolar and bipolar depression

Open access
Hershenberg, Rachel, Satterthwaite, Theodore D., Daldal, Aylin, Katchmar, Natalie, Moore, Tyler M., Kable, Joseph W., Wolf, Daniel H.·2016·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Amotivation, or decisional anhedonia, is a prominent and disabling feature of depression. However, this aspect of depression remains understudied, and no prior work has applied objective laboratory tests of motivation in both unipolar and bipolar depression.Methods We assessed motivation deficits using a Progressive Ratio Task (PRT) that indexes willingness to exert effort for monetary reward. The PRT was administered to 96 adults ages 18-60 including 25 participants with a current episode of unipolar depression, 28 with bipolar disorder (current episode depressed), and 43 controls without any Axis I psychiatric disorders.Results Depressed participants exhibited significantly lower motivation than control participants as objectively defined by progressive ratio breakpoints. Both the unipolar and bipolar groups were lower than controls but did not differ from each other.Limitations Medication use differed across groups, and we did not have a separate control task to measure psychomotor activity; however neither medication effects or psychomotor slowing are likely to explain our findings.Conclusions Our study fills an important gap in the literature by providing evidence that diminished effort on the PRT is present across depressed patients who experience either unipolar or bipolar depression. This adds to growing evidence for shared mechanisms of reward and motivation dysfunction, and highlights the importance of improving the assessment and treatment of motivation deficits across the mood disorders spectrum.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2016.02.003

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Low engagement with mental health services appears to occur partly because of lack of motivation inherent in conditions such as depression.

    “This low engagement with mental health services appears to occur for a variety of reasons: the lack of motivation inherent in conditions such as depression (6), low rates of mental health literacy (7), and the stigma, discrimination and embarrassment surrounding mental illness (8).”

    From What Works and What Doesn’t Work? A Systematic Review of Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression and Anxiety in Young People (2019) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Results and Discussion (page unavailable) report diminished motivation on a laboratory effort task in people with unipolar or bipolar depression. The paper does not establish that this motivational deficit causes low engagement with mental health services; its treatment discussion concerns potential ways to address the deficit, not service engagement. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 33 · Cited by 157

Authors
Hershenberg, R., Satterthwaite, T. D., Daldal, A., Katchmar, N., Moore, T. M., Kable, J. W., & Wolf, D. H.
Affiliations
  • Veterans Health Administration (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Wolf, Daniel H.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
196
Pages
97-100
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2282734698
Cited by
157
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 3
FWCI
13.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Brain and Behavior Research Foundation to DHW and TDS
  • Penn Medicine Neuroscience Center to DHW, JWK and TDS
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
amotivation, motivational deficits, major depressive disorder, bipolar depression, progressive ratio task, effort, reward processing, mood disorders, psychomotor retardation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Reward, Case-Control Studies, Young Adult, Anhedonia

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