Literature DB >> 23440893

Preference reversal between impulsive and self-control choice.

Emma Beeby1, K Geoffrey White.   

Abstract

In a concurrent-chains procedure, pigeons chose between reinforcers varying in delay and amount. Reinforcer amount was determined by duration of access to grain, and delay was determined by fixed-interval schedules in the terminal links. Preference was measured by the ratio of responses in initial links. Dependent scheduling of variable-interval schedules in initial links ensured that delay and amount were not confounded with frequency of outcomes, which remained equal for the two choices. In Experiment 1, in components signaled by red keys in the initial links, small and large reinforcers were delivered after delays of 1 s and 10 s respectively. In components signaled by green, additional time was added to both delays. Smaller-sooner reinforcers were preferred in red components. In green components, smaller-sooner reinforcers were preferred at short delays, and choices for the larger-later reinforcer generally increased with increasing duration of the added delay. At longer delays, up to 15 s, the larger-later reinforcer was preferred. That is, the pigeons showed within-session preference reversal, with impulsive choice at short delays in red components and self-control choice at long delays in green components. In Experiment 2, added delay to both reinforcement and reinforcer amount were varied. Sensitivity of initial-link response ratios to ratios of amount increased with increasing duration of the added delay. This interaction between delay and amount was predicted if the temporal discounting functions assumed the magnitude effect in which discounting rate was inversely proportional to amount. It was also predicted by the contextual choice model of performance in concurrent-chains procedures. © Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23440893     DOI: 10.1002/jeab.23

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  7 in total

1.  Contingency management works, clients like it, and it is cost-effective.

Authors:  Kimberly C Kirby; Lois A Benishek; Mary B Tabit
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 3.829

2.  Using a dependent schedule to measure risky choice in male rats: Effects of d-amphetamine, methylphenidate, and methamphetamine.

Authors:  Justin R Yates; Nicholas A Prior; Marissa R Chitwood; Haley A Day; Jonah R Heidel; Sarah E Hopkins; Brittany T Muncie; Tatiana A Paradella-Bradley; Alexandra P Sestito; Ashley N Vecchiola; Emily E Wells
Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 3.157

Review 3.  Dissecting drug effects in preclinical models of impulsive choice: emphasis on glutamatergic compounds.

Authors:  Justin R Yates
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2018-01-06       Impact factor: 4.530

4.  The effects of physical activity on impulsive choice: Influence of sensitivity to reinforcement amount and delay.

Authors:  Justin C Strickland; Max A Feinstein; Ryan T Lacy; Mark A Smith
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 1.777

5.  Pair housing, but not using a controlled reinforcer frequency procedure, attenuates the modulatory effect of probability presentation order on amphetamine-induced changes in risky choice.

Authors:  Justin R Yates; Alexis L Ellis; Karson E Evans; Joy L Kappesser; Kadyn M Lilly; Prodiges Mbambu; Tanner G Sutphin
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  In search of consolidation of short-term memory in nonhuman animals.

Authors:  Amanda Calder; K Geoffrey White
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.926

7.  Pharmacokinetics trumps pharmacodynamics during cocaine choice: a reconciliation with the dopamine hypothesis of addiction.

Authors:  Ludivine Canchy; Paul Girardeau; Audrey Durand; Caroline Vouillac-Mendoza; Serge H Ahmed
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 7.853

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.