ArticleBehavioural processes2025
Time estimation variability in delay discounting: Model comparison and considerations.
Article in Behavioural processes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Delay discounting describes an organism's sensitivity to delayed consequences. The advent of hyperboloid discounting models introduced the s discounting parameter, a fitted metric that reduces residual variance when working with human subjects. Mathematically, discounting s allows for a nonlinear relation between consequence (A) and delay (D) and could be conceptually accounted for as a psychophysical scalar that describes subjective differences in the rate of time passage. This study offers a proof-of-concept examination of hyperboloid s in relation to participant time-based experiences. A crowdsourced sample of adults (N = 211) completed tasks measuring time estimation (i.e., reporting how much time passed during a distractor task) and temporal distance estimation (i.e., reporting how temporally distant a delay feels). Participants generally underestimated durations in the time estimation task, where income and completion of a preceding day-framed discounting task (versus date-framed), but not Myerson and Green's s (b = -0.19), and modestly Rachlin's s (b = 0.82), exhibited a statistically significant relation with time estimation accuracy. Similarly, participant age and delay framing, but not hyperboloid s, exhibited a statistically significant relation with temporal distance estimation discrepancies. Broadly, data suggest that s may not be accounting for differences in time estimation as measured in this sample. At most, the modest effect observed for Rachlin's s suggests limited conceptual value, meriting further consideration of the metric's account of subject-level differences.
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.