ArticlePsychological methods2021
Testing the factor structure underlying behavior using joint cognitive models: Impulsivity in delay discounting and Cambridge gambling tasks.
Article in Psychological methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- No Evidence of Moderated Impulsivity Following Administration of the IMPase Inhibitor Ebselen in Healthy Adults.Human psychopharmacology · 2026Trial
- A double-blind study assessing the impact of orbitofrontal theta burst stimulation on goal-directed behavior.Journal of psychopathology and clinical science · 2022Trial
- Less systematic decision-making during delay discounting, but not discounting rate, is robustly linked to psychopathology.Journal of psychopathology and clinical science · 2026Article
- Joint Cognitive Models Reveal Sources of Robust Individual Differences in Conflict Processing.Computational brain & behavior · 2026Article
- Associations Between Steep Delay Discounting and Punishment Learning.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Comparing likelihood-based and likelihood-free approaches to fitting and comparing models of intertemporal choice.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Negative affectivity drivers of impulsivity in opioid use disorder.Nature reviews. Psychology · 2025Article
- The relationship between mental health and risky decision-making in children and adolescents: a scoping review.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- A scoping review on self-regulation and reward processing measured with gambling tasks: Evidence from the general youth population.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Effects of Cognitive Impulsivity on the Duration of Remission in Alcohol-Dependent Patients.Consortium psychiatricum · 2023Article
- Reciprocal associations between affective decision-making and mental health in adolescence.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2023Article
- Neurocognitive Impulsivity in Opiate Users at Different Lengths of Abstinence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Environmental uncertainty and the advantage of impulsive choice strategies.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Developmental trajectories of delay discounting from childhood to young adulthood: longitudinal associations and test-retest reliability.Cognitive psychology · 2022Article
- Self-reported mind wandering reflects executive control and selective attention.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
- Enhancing the Psychometric Properties of the Iowa Gambling Task Using Full Generative Modeling.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Article
- The problems with delay discounting: a critical review of current practices and clinical applications.Psychological medicine · 2021Review
- Are You Sure: Preference and Ambivalence in Delay Discounting.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2021Article
- Individual Differences in Intertemporal Choice.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Neurocognitive tasks are frequently used to assess disordered decision making, and cognitive models of these tasks can quantify performance in terms related to decision makers' underlying cognitive processes. In many cases, multiple cognitive models purport to describe similar processes, but it is difficult to evaluate whether they measure the same latent traits or processes. In this article, we develop methods for modeling behavior across multiple tasks by connecting cognitive model parameters to common latent constructs. This approach can be used to assess whether 2 tasks measure the same dimensions of cognition, or actually improve the estimates of cognitive models when there are overlapping cognitive processes between 2 related tasks. The approach is then applied to connecting decision data on 2 behavioral tasks that evaluate clinically relevant deficits, the delay discounting task and Cambridge gambling task, to determine whether they both measure the same dimension of impulsivity. We find that the discounting rate parameters in the models of each task are not closely related, although substance users exhibit more impulsive behavior on both tasks. Instead, temporal discounting on the delay discounting task as quantified by the model is more closely related to externalizing psychopathology like aggression, while temporal discounting on the Cambridge gambling task is related more to response inhibition failures. The methods we develop thus provide a new way to connect behavior across tasks and grant new insights onto the different dimensions of impulsivity and their relation to substance use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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.