Literature DB >> 27359127

Rats value time differently on equivalent foraging and delay-discounting tasks.

Evan C Carter1, A David Redish2.   

Abstract

All organisms have to consider consequences that vary through time. Theories explaining how animals handle intertemporal choice include delay-discounting models, in which the value of future rewards is discounted by the delay until receipt, and foraging models, which predict that decision-makers maximize rate of reward. We measured the behavior of rats on a 2-option delay-discounting task and a stay/go foraging task that were equivalent for rate of reward and physical demand. Despite the highly shared features of the tasks, rats were willing to wait much longer on the foraging task than on the delay-discounting task. Moreover, choice performance by rats was less optimal in terms of total reward received on the foraging task compared to the delay-discounting task. We applied a suite of intertemporal choice models to the data but found that we needed a novel model incorporating interactions of decision-making systems to successfully explain behavior. Our findings (a) highlight the importance of factors that historically have been seen as irrelevant and (b) indicate the inadequacy of current general theories of intertemporal choice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27359127      PMCID: PMC5050558          DOI: 10.1037/xge0000196

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  20 in total

Review 1.  A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making.

Authors:  Antonio Rangel; Colin Camerer; P Read Montague
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2008-06-11       Impact factor: 34.870

2.  Delay-amount tradeoffs in choices by pigeons and rats: hyperbolic versus exponential discounting.

Authors:  James E Mazur; Dawn R Biondi
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 3.  Explanations of the endowment effect: an integrative review.

Authors:  Carey K Morewedge; Colleen E Giblin
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 4.  The Computational Complexity of Valuation and Motivational Forces in Decision-Making Processes.

Authors:  A David Redish; Nathan W Schultheiss; Evan C Carter
Journal:  Curr Top Behav Neurosci       Date:  2016

5.  Discrimination, discounting and impulsivity: a role for an informational constraint.

Authors:  David W Stephens
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2002-11-29       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  When is it time to move to the next raspberry bush? Foraging rules in human visual search.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Food-caching western scrub-jays keep track of who was watching when.

Authors:  Joanna M Dally; Nathan J Emery; Nicola S Clayton
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-05-18       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 8.  A unified framework for addiction: vulnerabilities in the decision process.

Authors:  A David Redish; Steve Jensen; Adam Johnson
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 21.357

9.  A general theory of intertemporal decision-making and the perception of time.

Authors:  Vijay M K Namboodiri; Stefan Mihalas; Tanya M Marton; Marshall G Hussain Shuler
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 3.558

10.  Monkeys are more patient in a foraging task than in a standard intertemporal choice task.

Authors:  Tommy C Blanchard; Benjamin Y Hayden
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  9 in total

1.  Time preferences are reliable across time-horizons and verbal versus experiential tasks.

Authors:  Evgeniya Lukinova; Yuyue Wang; Steven F Lehrer; Jeffrey C Erlich
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 8.140

2.  Self-Controlled Choice Arises from Dynamic Prefrontal Signals That Enable Future Anticipation.

Authors:  Daiki Tanaka; Ryuta Aoki; Shinsuke Suzuki; Masaki Takeda; Kiyoshi Nakahara; Koji Jimura
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Altering gain of the infralimbic-to-accumbens shell circuit alters economically dissociable decision-making algorithms.

Authors:  Brian M Sweis; Erin B Larson; A David Redish; Mark J Thomas
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Prolonged abstinence from cocaine or morphine disrupts separable valuations during decision conflict.

Authors:  Brian M Sweis; A David Redish; Mark J Thomas
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 14.919

Review 5.  Beyond simple tests of value: measuring addiction as a heterogeneous disease of computation-specific valuation processes.

Authors:  Brian M Sweis; Mark J Thomas; A David Redish
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 2.699

6.  Rats exhibit similar biases in foraging and intertemporal choice tasks.

Authors:  Gary A Kane; Aaron M Bornstein; Amitai Shenhav; Robert C Wilson; Nathaniel D Daw; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 8.140

7.  Foraging as an evidence accumulation process.

Authors:  Jacob D Davidson; Ahmed El Hady
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 4.475

8.  Vicarious Trial-and-Error Is Enhanced During Deliberation in Human Virtual Navigation in a Translational Foraging Task.

Authors:  Thach Huynh; Keanan Alstatt; Samantha V Abram; Neil Schmitzer-Torbert
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 3.558

9.  Certainty and uncertainty of the future changes planning and sunk costs.

Authors:  Anneke A Duin; London Aman; Brandy Schmidt; A David Redish
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 2.154

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.