Cited by 12Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Online measurement of motivational processes: Introducing the Continuous Delay Aversion Test (ConDAT)

Müller, Ueli C., Sonuga-Barke, Edmund J.S., Brandeis, Daniel, Steinhausen, Hans-Christoph·2006·Journal of Neuroscience Methods

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.10.022

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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