Reward/punishment reversal learning in older suicide attempters
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: Suicide rates are high in old age, and the contribution of cognitive risk factors remains poorly understood. Suicide may be viewed as an outcome of an altered decision process. The authors hypothesized that impairment in reward/punishment-based learning, a component of affective decision making, is associated with attempted suicide in late-life depression. They expected that suicide attempters would discount past reward/punishment history, focusing excessively on the most recent rewards and punishments. The authors further hypothesized that this impairment could be dissociated from executive abilities, such as forward planning. METHOD: The authors assessed reward/punishment-based learning using the probabilistic reversal learning task in 65 individuals age 60 and older: suicide attempters, suicide ideators, nonsuicidal depressed elderly, and nondepressed comparison subjects. The authors used a reinforcement learning computational model to decompose reward/punishment processing over time. The Stockings of Cambridge test served as a control measure of executive function. RESULTS: Suicide attempters but not suicide ideators showed impaired probabilistic reversal learning compared to both nonsuicidal depressed elderly and nondepressed comparison subjects, after controlling for effects of education, global cognitive function, and substance use. Model-based analyses revealed that suicide attempters discounted previous history to a higher degree relative to comparison subjects, basing their choice largely on reward/punishment received on the last trial. Groups did not differ in their performance on the Stockings of Cambridge test. CONCLUSIONS: Older suicide attempters display impaired reward/punishment-based learning. The authors propose a hypothesis that older suicide attempters make overly present-focused decisions, ignoring past experiences. Modification of this "myopia for the past" may have therapeutic potential.
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?
MDD patients show inflexibility when reinforcement contingencies change, as assessed by choice-reversal tasks.
“inflexibility in the face of changing reinforcement contingencies, as assessed in choice-reversal tasks (22–24);”
From Localization of Dysfunction in Major Depressive Disorder: Prefrontal Cortex and Amygdala (2011) · cites this paper as [23]
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 58 · Cited by 193
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [25]First MSR Gibbon M Williams JBW Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders - Patient Edition (SCID-I/P) Version 2.0 ed 1995
- Authors
- Dombrovski, A. Y., Clark, L., Siegle, G. J., Butters, M. A., Ichikawa, N., Sahakian, B. J., & Szanto, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- American Journal of Psychiatry
- Published
- 2010-06-01
- Volume
- 167
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 699-707
- ISSN
- 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-7228
- PMC
- PMC3020386
- OpenAlex
- W2161306301
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 11.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000005)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH072947, K02MH082998, R01MH080240, K23MH086620, K23MH070471, R01MH085651)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- suicide attempters, older adults, probabilistic reversal learning, geriatric depression, emotional decision-making, executive function, suicidal ideation
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Cognition Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, Punishment, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, Severity of Illness Index, Suicide, Attempted
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