Effects of Amount on Probability Discounting: A Replication and Extension

2021 ◽  
pp. 104448
Author(s):  
Molly A.B. Anderson ◽  
Jesse Dallery
2012 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Jarmolowicz ◽  
Warren K. Bickel ◽  
Anne E. Carter ◽  
Christopher T. Franck ◽  
E. Terry Mueller

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Jenkin N. Y. Mok ◽  
Leonard Green ◽  
Joel Myerson ◽  
Donna Kwan ◽  
Jake Kurczek ◽  
...  

Abstract If the tendency to discount rewards reflects individuals' general level of impulsiveness, then the discounting of delayed and probabilistic rewards should be negatively correlated: The less a person is able to wait for delayed rewards, the more they should take chances on receiving probabilistic rewards. It has been suggested that damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vMPFC) increases individuals' impulsiveness, but both intertemporal choice and risky choice have only recently been assayed in the same patients with vMPFC damage. Here, we assess both delay and probability discounting in individuals with vMPFC damage (n = 8) or with medial temporal lobe (MTL) damage (n = 10), and in age- and education-matched controls (n = 30). On average, MTL-lesioned individuals discounted delayed rewards at normal rates but discounted probabilistic rewards more shallowly than controls. In contrast, vMPFC-lesioned individuals discounted delayed rewards more steeply but probabilistic rewards more shallowly than controls. These results suggest that vMPFC lesions affect the weighting of reward amount relative to delay and certainty in opposite ways. Moreover, whereas MTL-lesioned individuals and controls showed typical, nonsignificant correlations between the discounting of delayed and probabilistic rewards, vMPFC-lesioned individuals showed a significant negative correlation, as would be expected if vMPFC damage increases impulsiveness more in some patients than in others. Although these results are consistent with the hypothesis that vMPFC plays a role in impulsiveness, it is unclear how they could be explained by a single mechanism governing valuation of both delayed and probabilistic rewards.


2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 495-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meredith S. Berry ◽  
Patrick S. Johnson ◽  
Anahí Collado ◽  
Jennifer M. Loya ◽  
Richard Yi ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 318-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Ohmura ◽  
Taiki Takahashi ◽  
Nozomi Kitamura ◽  
Paul Wehr

2016 ◽  
Vol 234 (4) ◽  
pp. 599-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew W. Johnson ◽  
Evan S. Herrmann ◽  
Mary M. Sweeney ◽  
Robert S. LeComte ◽  
Patrick S. Johnson

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 544-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziliang Wang ◽  
Xiaoyue Liu ◽  
Yanbo Hu ◽  
Hui Zheng ◽  
Xiaoxia Du ◽  
...  

ObjectivesInternet gaming disorder (IGD) is becoming a matter of concern around the world. However, the neural mechanism underlying IGD remains unclear. The purpose of this paper is to explore the differences between the neuronal network of IGD participants and that of recreational Internet game users (RGU).MethodsImaging and behavioral data were collected from 18 IGD participants and 20 RGU under a probability discounting task. The independent component analysis (ICA) and graph theoretical analysis (GTA) were used to analyze the data.ResultsBehavioral results showed the IGD participants, compared to RGU, prefer risky options to the fixed ones and spent less time in making risky decisions. In imaging results, the ICA analysis revealed that the IGD participants showed stronger functional connectivity (FC) in reward circuits and executive control network, as well as lower FC in anterior salience network (ASN) than RGU; for the GTA results, the IGD participants showed impaired FC in reward circuits and ASN when compared with RGU.ConclusionsThese results suggest that IGD participants were more sensitive to rewards, and they were more impulsive in decision-making as they could not control their impulsivity effectively. This might explain why IGD participants cannot stop their gaming behaviors even when facing severe negative consequences.


2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 651-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. A. Lindbergh ◽  
A. N. Puente ◽  
J. C. Gray ◽  
J. Mackillop ◽  
L. S. Miller

2016 ◽  
Vol 125 ◽  
pp. 13-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin T. Mahoney ◽  
Steven R. Lawyer

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document