Cited by 163Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Behavioral modeling of human choices reveals dissociable effects of physical effort and temporal delay on reward devaluation

Open access
Klein-Flügge, Miriam C., Kennerley, Steven W., Saraiva, Ana C., Penny, Will D., Bestmann, Sven·2015·PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract

There has been considerable interest from the fields of biology, economics, psychology, and ecology about how decision costs decrease the value of rewarding outcomes. For example, formal descriptions of how reward value changes with increasing temporal delays allow for quantifying individual decision preferences, as in animal species populating different habitats, or normal and clinical human populations. Strikingly, it remains largely unclear how humans evaluate rewards when these are tied to energetic costs, despite the surge of interest in the neural basis of effort-guided decision-making and the prevalence of disorders showing a diminished willingness to exert effort (e.g., depression). One common assumption is that effort discounts reward in a similar way to delay. Here we challenge this assumption by formally comparing competing hypotheses about effort and delay discounting. We used a design specifically optimized to compare discounting behavior for both effort and delay over a wide range of decision costs (Experiment 1). We then additionally characterized the profile of effort discounting free of model assumptions (Experiment 2). Contrary to previous reports, in both experiments effort costs devalued reward in a manner opposite to delay, with small devaluations for lower efforts, and progressively larger devaluations for higher effort-levels (concave shape). Bayesian model comparison confirmed that delay-choices were best predicted by a hyperbolic model, with the largest reward devaluations occurring at shorter delays. In contrast, an altogether different relationship was observed for effort-choices, which were best described by a model of inverse sigmoidal shape that is initially concave. Our results provide a novel characterization of human effort discounting behavior and its first dissociation from delay discounting. This enables accurate modelling of cost-benefit decisions, a prerequisite for the investigation of the neural underpinnings of effort-guided choice and for understanding the deficits in clinical disorders characterized by behavioral inactivity.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004116

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Controlling the temporal parameters of both the cognitive and physical effort tasks eliminated delay discounting as an explanation of choice behaviour.

    “Third, by controlling the temporal parameters of both the cognitive and physical effort tasks, it was possible to eliminate delay discounting as an explanation of choice behaviour [5, 47, 48].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [2]Stephens DW, Krebs JR. Foraging Theory Princeton University Press; 1986.
  2. [47]Meier S, Sprenger C. Present-Biased Preferences and Credit Card Borrowing [Internet]. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; Report No.: ID 1412276. Available: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1412276

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klein-Flügge, M. C., Kennerley, S. W., Saraiva, A. C., Penny, W. D., & Bestmann, S.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
Corresponding author
Klein-Flügge, Miriam C.
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2015-03-27
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
e1004116
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2087839453
Cited by
163
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (091593, 091593/Z/10/, 096689/Z/11/Z, /Z/11/Z, 096689, 086120, 086120/Z/08/Z)
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
effort discounting, delay discounting, reward devaluation, hyperbolic discounting, depression, Bayesian model selection, human choice behavior
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Biological, Reward, Task Performance and Analysis, Hand Strength, Computational Biology, 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