Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25816114›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2015

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

Miriam C Klein-Flügge, Steven W Kennerley, Ana C Saraiva, Will D Penny, Sven Bestmann

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 74 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 164 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Neurobiology of Cognitive Fatigue and Its Influence on Effort-Based Choice.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Miriam C Klein-FlüggeSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Steven W KennerleySobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Ana C SaraivaSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Will D PennyWellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Sven BestmannSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
University College London · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilWellcome Trust 086120/Z/08/ZWellcome Trust 091593Wellcome Trust 091593/Z/10/Wellcome Trust 096689Wellcome Trust 096689/Z/11/Z
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalRewardAdultChoice BehaviorComputational BiologyFemaleHand StrengthHumansMaleTask Performance and AnalysisYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25816114
PMCPMC4376637
OpenAlexW2087839453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.