ArticlePloS one2017
Physical and cognitive effort discounting across different reward magnitudes: Tests of discounting models.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effort-Cost Decision-making Among Individuals With Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- The influence of effort expenditure on the neurophysiological substrates of reward processing in early adolescence.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- A Behavioral Economic Characterization of the Impact of the COVID-19 Quarantine on Reinforcer Diversity, Behavior, and Health.Perspectives on behavior science · 2026Review
- Conjoint influence of effort and delay in decision making and its implication for the neural mechanisms of choice.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Humans are more prosocial in poor foraging environments.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Influence of Televisibility and Harm Probability on Clinical-Ethical Decision Making.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Article
- A common alteration in effort-based decision-making in apathy, anhedonia, and late circadian rhythm.eLife · 2025Article
- Shielding working memory from distraction is more effortful than flexible updating.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- How mood-related physiological states bias economic decisions.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Day-to-day fluctuations in motivation drive effort-based decision-making.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Genome-wide association study of delay discounting in Heterogeneous Stock rats.Genes, brain, and behavior · 2024Article
- Dopamine and acetylcholine have distinct roles in delay- and effort-based decision-making in humans.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Genome-wide association study of delay discounting in Heterogenous Stock rats.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Need for Cognition is associated with a preference for higher task load in effort discounting.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Mood fluctuations shift cost-benefit tradeoffs in economic decisions.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Worth the Work? Monkeys Discount Rewards by a Subjective Adapting Effort Cost.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Estimating individual subjective values of emotion regulation strategies.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Associations Between Cognitive and Physical Effort-Based Decision Making in People With Schizophrenia and Healthy Control Subjects.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2023Article
- Effortfulness of visual working memory: Gauged by physical exertion.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2023Article
- Moderate Stability among Delay, Probability, and Effort Discounting in Humans.The Psychological record · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effort required to obtain a rewarding outcome is an important factor in decision-making. Describing the reward devaluation by increasing effort intensity is substantial to understanding human preferences, because every action and choice that we make is in itself effortful. To investigate how reward valuation is affected by physical and cognitive effort, we compared mathematical discounting functions derived from research on discounting. Seven discounting models were tested across three different reward magnitudes. To test the models, data were collected from a total of 114 participants recruited from the general population. For one-parameter models (hyperbolic, exponential, and parabolic), the data were explained best by the exponential model as given by a percentage of explained variance. However, after introducing an additional parameter, data obtained in the cognitive and physical effort conditions were best described by the power function model. Further analysis, using the second order Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria, which account for model complexity, allowed us to identify the best model among all tested. We found that the power function best described the data, which corresponds to conventional analyses based on the R2 measure. This supports the conclusion that the function best describing reward devaluation by physical and cognitive effort is a concave one and is different from those that describe delay or probability discounting. In addition, consistent magnitude effects were observed that correspond to those in delay discounting research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.