Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29305628›Full record

ReviewPsychopharmacology2018

Dissecting drug effects in preclinical models of impulsive choice: emphasis on glutamatergic compounds.

Justin R Yates

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychopharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Justin R YatesDepartment of Psychological Science, Northern Kentucky University, 1 Nunn Drive, Highland Heights, KY, 41099, USA. yatesj1@nku.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5121-0794

Funding

WKU Lead Faculty AwardP20GM103436 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE · PI ERIC C ROUCHKA · 2012 to 2026
$60.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103436
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleImpulsive choice is often measured with delay discounting paradigms. Because there are multiple discounting procedures, as well as different statistical analyses that can be applied to data generated from these paradigms, there are some inconsistencies in the literature regarding drug effects on impulsive choice.

objectivesThe goal of the current paper is to review the methodological and analytic approaches used to measure discounting and to discuss how these differences can account for differential drug effects observed across studies.

resultsBecause some procedures/analyses use a single data point as the dependent variable, changes in this value following pharmacological treatment may be interpreted as alterations in sensitivity to delayed reinforcement, but when other procedures/analyses are used, no changes in behavior are observed. Even when multiple data points are included, some studies show that the statistical analysis (e.g., ANOVA on raw proportion of responses vs. using hyperbolic/exponential functions) can lead to different interpretations. Finally, procedural differences (e.g., delay presentation order, signaling the delay to reinforcement, etc.) in the same discounting paradigm can alter how drugs affect sensitivity to delayed reinforcement.

conclusionsFuture studies should utilize paradigms that allow one to observe alterations in responding at each delay (e.g., concurrent-chains schedules). Concerning statistical analyses, using parameter estimates derived from nonlinear functions or incorporating the generalized matching law can allow one to determine if drugs affect sensitivity to delayed reinforcement or impair discrimination of the large and small magnitude reinforcers. Using these approaches can help further our understanding of the neurochemical underpinnings of delay discounting.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsChoice BehaviorDelay DiscountingDose-Response Relationship, DrugGlutamineHumansImpulsive BehaviorReinforcement, PsychologyGlutamineDelay discountingImpulsive choiceQuantitative analysesSensitivity to delayed reinforcement

Identifiers

PMID29305628
PMCPMC5823766

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.