Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27867839›Full record

ArticleTiming & time perception (Leiden, Netherlands)2016

Reward Contrast Effects on Impulsive Choice and Timing in Rats.

Aaron P Smith, Jennifer R Peterson, Kimberly Kirkpatrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Timing & time perception (Leiden, Netherlands), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Aaron P SmithUniversity of Kentucky.
Jennifer R PetersonKansas State University.
Kimberly KirkpatrickKansas State University.

Funding

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

Abstract

Despite considerable interest in impulsive choice as a predictor of a variety of maladaptive behaviors, the mechanisms that drive choice behavior are still poorly understood. The present study sought to examine the influence of one understudied variable, reward magnitude contrast, on choice and timing behavior as changes in magnitude commonly occur within choice procedures. In addition, assessments of indirect effects on choice behavior through magnitude-timing interactions were assessed by measuring timing within the choice task. Rats were exposed to choice procedures composed of different pairs of magnitudes of rewards for either the smaller-sooner (SS) or larger-later (LL) option. In Phase 2, the magnitude of reward either increased or decreased by 1 pellet in different groups (LL increase = 1v1→1v2; SS decrease = 2v2 → 1v2; SS increase = 1v2 → 2v2), followed by a return to baseline in Phase 3. Choice behavior was affected by the initial magnitudes experienced in the task, demonstrating a strong anchor effect. The nature of the change in magnitude affected choice behavior as well. Timing behavior was also affected by the reward contrast manipulation albeit to a lesser degree and the timing and choice effects were correlated. The results suggest that models of choice behavior should incorporate reinforcement history, reward contrast elements, and magnitude-timing interactions, but that direct effects of reward contrast on choice should be given more weight than the indirect reward-timing interactions. A better understanding of the factors that contribute to choice behavior could supply key insights into this important individual differences variable.

Indexed as

contrastdelay discountingimpulsive choiceindividual differencesratsReward magnitudetiming

Identifiers

PMID27867839
PMCPMC5113731

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.