ReviewPsychopharmacology2018
Dissecting drug effects in preclinical models of impulsive choice: emphasis on glutamatergic compounds.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aberrant glutamatergic systems underlying impulsive behaviors: Insights from clinical and preclinical research.Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry · 2024Review
- Effects of d-amphetamine and MK-801 on impulsive choice: Modulation by schedule of reinforcement and delay length.Behavioural brain research · 2019Article
- Examining the neurochemical underpinnings of animal models of risky choice: Methodological and analytic considerations.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2019Review
- Effects of GluN2B-selective antagonists on delay and probability discounting in male rats: Modulation by delay/probability presentation order.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2018Article
- Effects of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAr) uncompetitive antagonists in a delay discounting paradigm using a concurrent-chains procedure.Behavioural brain research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
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
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.