Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25490901›Full record

ArticleJournal of the experimental analysis of behavior2015

Measurement of impulsive choice in rats: same- and alternate-form test-retest reliability and temporal tracking.

Jennifer R Peterson, Catherine C Hill, Kimberly Kirkpatrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Delay discounting of different outcomes: Review and theory.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Selective chemogenetic inactivation of corticoaccumbal projections disrupts trait choice impulsivity.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Pharmacokinetics trumps pharmacodynamics during cocaine choice: a reconciliation with the dopamine hypothesis of addiction.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2021
    Article
  10. Cognitive and behavioral training interventions to promote self-control.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2019
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Reward Contrast Effects on Impulsive Choice and Timing in Rats.Timing & time perception (Leiden, Netherlands) · 2016
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jennifer R PetersonDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Kansas State University.
Catherine C Hill
Kimberly Kirkpatrick

Funding

Timing, Reward Processing and choiceR01MH085739 · NIMH · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SMITH, TRAVIS R · 2010 to 2025
$4.7M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH085739NIMH NIH HHS R01-MH085739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Impulsive choice is typically measured by presenting smaller-sooner (SS) versus larger-later (LL) rewards, with biases towards the SS indicating impulsivity. The current study tested rats on different impulsive choice procedures with LL delay manipulations to assess same-form and alternate-form test-retest reliability. In the systematic-GE procedure (Green & Estle, 2003), the LL delay increased after several sessions of training; in the systematic-ER procedure (Evenden & Ryan, 1996), the delay increased within each session; and in the adjusting-M procedure (Mazur, 1987), the delay changed after each block of trials within a session based on each rat's choices in the previous block. In addition to measuring choice behavior, we also assessed temporal tracking of the LL delays using the median times of responding during LL trials. The two systematic procedures yielded similar results in both choice and temporal tracking measures following extensive training, whereas the adjusting procedure resulted in relatively more impulsive choices and poorer temporal tracking. Overall, the three procedures produced acceptable same form test-retest reliability over time, but the adjusting procedure did not show significant alternate form test-retest reliability with the other two procedures. The results suggest that systematic procedures may supply better measurements of impulsive choice in rats.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorImpulsive BehaviorAnimalsConditioning, OperantDelay DiscountingMaleRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyReproducibility of ResultsTime Factorsdelay discountingimpulsive choiceindividual differencesratstemporal tracking

Identifiers

PMID25490901
PMCPMC4875579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.