Online measurement of motivational processes: Introducing the Continuous Delay Aversion Test (ConDAT)
Abstract
The Continuous Delay Aversion Test (ConDAT), a new computer task for online monitoring and continuously measuring delay aversion (DA), is introduced. DA is a motivational style related to a shortened delay gradient which is proposed as a major endophenotype of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It is characterised by avoiding or escaping from delay-rich situations despite the prospects of a reward. In each ConDAT trial the rapidly diminishing reward/delay ratio, which tends asymptotically towards zero, is visually presented on the computer screen. The test subject is permanently confronted with the question whether to quit or to continue the trial in the face of the deteriorating reward/time ratio. An elaborated control of stimuli and responses, including the sending of trigger codes to external recording devices, makes the task useful for neurophysiological or brain imaging experiments. Compared to existing tasks, the ConDAT is more flexible and sensitive due to its asymptotic open-ended trials and the interval-scaled output measure. Pilot data give evidence for satisfactory reliability and external validity of the task.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
There are several other measures of impulsive decision-making, including delay aversion tasks or other methods of evaluating discounting of delayed rewards.
“There are several other measures of impulsive decision-making, including delay aversion tasks or other methods of evaluating discounting of delayed rewards (Bitsakou et al., 2006, Knutson et al., 2001, Muller et al., 2006, Rachlin et al., 1991).”
From Characterizing heterogeneity in children with and without ADHD based on reward system connectivity (2015) · cites this paper as Muller et al., 2006
Cites
Discounting of Delayed Rewards: A Life-Span Comparison
Green, L., Fry, A. F., & Myerson, J. (1994) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00610.x · Cited by 1,165 · see citing works
Psychological heterogeneity in AD/HD—a dual pathway model of behaviour and cognition
Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (2002) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0166-4328(01)00432-6 · Cited by 901 · see citing works
Self-citationBarkley, R. A., Edwards, G., Laneri, M., Fletcher, K., & Metevia, L. (2001) · Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology · doi:10.1023/a:1012233310098 · Cited by 638 · see citing works
Barkley, R. A. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.121.1.65 · Cited by 580 · see citing works
Altered reinforcement mechanisms in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Sagvolden, T., Aase, H., Zeiner, P., & Berger, D. (1998) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0166-4328(97)00170-8 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Milberger, S., Biederman, J., Faraone, S. V., Guite, J., & Tsuang, M. T. (1997) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/0006-3223(95)00653-2 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Temporal reward discounting and ADHD: task and symptom specific effects
Scheres, A., Lee, A., & Sumiya, M. (2008) · Journal of Neural Transmission · doi:10.1007/s00702-007-0813-6 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Characterizing heterogeneity in children with and without ADHD based on reward system connectivity
Costa Dias, T. G., Iyer, S. P., Carpenter, S. D., Cary, R. P., Wilson, V. B., Mitchell, S. H., Nigg, J. T., & Fair, D. A. (2015) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2014.12.005 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Neural and psychophysiological markers of delay aversion in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
Wilbertz, G., Trueg, A., Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., Blechert, J., Philipsen, A., & Tebartz van Elst, L. (2013) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0031924 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Müller, U. C., Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., Brandeis, D., & Steinhausen, H.-C.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- University of Southampton (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Müller, Ueli C.
- Venue
- Journal of Neuroscience Methods
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 151
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-51
- ISSN
- 0165-0270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2099090074
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 0.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- delay aversion, motivational processes, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, endophenotypes, computer tasks, online measurement, task design, reliability statistics, generalizability
- MeSH terms
- Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Biofeedback, Psychology, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Neuropsychological Tests, Online Systems, Pilot Projects, Reference Values, Reward, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
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