Isolating the delay component of impulsive choice in adolescent rats
Open accessAbstract
Impulsive choice-the preference for small immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards-has been linked to various psychological conditions ranging from behavioral disorders to addiction. These links highlight the critical need to dissect the various components of this multifaceted behavioral trait. Delay discounting tasks allow researchers to study an important factor of this behavior: how the subjective value of a rewards changes over a delay period. However, existing methods of delay discounting include a confound of different reward sizes within the procedure. Here we present a new approach of using a single constant reward size to assess delay discounting. A complementary approach could hold delay constant and assess the utility of changing quantities of a reward. Isolating these behavioral components can advance our ability to explore the behavioral complexity of impulsive choice. We present in detail the methods for isolating delay, and further capitalize on this method by pairing it with a standard peak interval task to test whether individual variation in delay discounting can be explained by differences in perception of time in male and female adolescent rats. We find that rats that were more precise in discriminating time intervals were also less impulsive in their choice. Our data suggest that differences in timing and delay discounting are not causally related, but instead are more likely influenced by a common factor. Further, the mean-level change in our measure between post-natal day 28 and 42 suggests this test may be capturing a developmental change in this factor. In summary, this new method of isolating individual components of impulsive choice (delay or quantity) can be efficiently applied in either adolescent or adult animal models and may help elucidate the mechanisms underlying impulsivity and its links to psychological disorders.
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?
Imprecision in interval timing is correlated with impulsive choice and with delay discounting.
“The empirical observation that imprecision in interval timing is correlated with impulsive choice (Darcheville, Rivière, & Wearden, 1992; Marshall, Smith, & Kirkpatrick, 2014) and delay discounting (McClure, Podos, & Richardson, 2014)”
From Changing Delay Discounting and Impulsive Choice: Implications for Addictions, Prevention, and Human Health (2019) · cites this paper as McClure et al., 2014
McClure et al. concluded that the relation between timing precision and delay discounting in rats was due to a third variable correlated with both measures.
“When McClure et al. (2014) reported a significant relation between timing precision and delay discounting in rats, the complete profile of their data led them to conclude that this relation was due to a third variable correlated with these two dependent measures.”
From Changing Delay Discounting and Impulsive Choice: Implications for Addictions, Prevention, and Human Health (2019) · cites this paper as McClure et al., 2014
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 79 · Cited by 62
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bateson M. Kacelnik A. (1998). Risk-sensitive foraging: decision making in variable environments, in Cognitive Ecology, ed Dukas R. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), 297– 341
- Authors
- McClure, J., Podos, J., & Richardson, H. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- Corresponding author
- Richardson, Heather N.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- 3-3
- ISSN
- 1662-5145 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3902300
- OpenAlex
- W2171266376
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8
- FWCI
- 6.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R21AA021013)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Keywords
- impulsive choice, delay discounting, time interval discrimination, impulsivity, adolescent rats, sex differences, developmental changes
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