Display options
Cite
O'Hora D, Carey R, Kervick A, et al. Decisions in Motion: Decision Dynamics during Intertemporal Choice reflect Subjective Evaluation of Delayed Rewards. Sci Rep. 2016;6:20740doi: 10.1038/srep20740.
O'Hora, D., Carey, R., Kervick, A., Crowley, D., & Dabrowski, M. (2016). Decisions in Motion: Decision Dynamics during Intertemporal Choice reflect Subjective Evaluation of Delayed Rewards. Scientific reports, 620740. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20740
O'Hora, Denis, et al. "Decisions in Motion: Decision Dynamics during Intertemporal Choice reflect Subjective Evaluation of Delayed Rewards." Scientific reports vol. 6 (2016): 20740. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20740
O'Hora D, Carey R, Kervick A, Crowley D, Dabrowski M. Decisions in Motion: Decision Dynamics during Intertemporal Choice reflect Subjective Evaluation of Delayed Rewards. Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 12;6:20740. doi: 10.1038/srep20740. PMID: 26867497; PMCID: PMC4751609.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 12;6:20740. doi: 10.1038/srep20740.

Decisions in Motion: Decision Dynamics during Intertemporal Choice reflect Subjective Evaluation of Delayed Rewards.

Scientific reports

Denis O'Hora, Rachel Carey, Aoife Kervick, David Crowley, Maciej Dabrowski

Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland.
  2. Department of Clinical, Educational &Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
  3. Insight Centre for Data Analytics, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland.
  4. Department of Computing, Creative Media &Information Technology, Institute of Technology, Tralee, Dromtacker, Tralee, Co. Kerry, Ireland.

PMID: 26867497 PMCID: PMC4751609 DOI: 10.1038/srep20740

Abstract

People tend to discount rewards or losses that occur in the future. Such delay discounting has been linked to many behavioral and health problems, since people choose smaller short-term gains over greater long-term gains. We investigated whether the effect of delays on the subjective value of rewards is expressed in how people move when they make choices. Over 600 patrons of the RISK LAB exhibition hosted by the Science Gallery Dublin(TM) played a short computer game in which they used a computer mouse to choose between amounts of money at various delays. Typical discounting effects were observed and decision dynamics indicated that choosing smaller short-term rewards became easier (i.e., shorter response times, tighter trajectories, less vacillation) as the delays until later rewards increased. Based on a sequence of choices, subjective values of delayed outcomes were estimated and decision dynamics during initial choices predicted these values. Decision dynamics are affected by subjective values of available options and thus provide a means to estimate such values.

References

  1. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2014 Dec;231(23):4517-26 - PubMed
  2. Front Psychol. 2012 Nov 20;3:514 - PubMed
  3. Sci Rep. 2013;3:2210 - PubMed
  4. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008 Jul;9(7):545-56 - PubMed
  5. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Jun;63(6):1072-84 - PubMed
  6. Behav Processes. 2013 Jun;96:71-8 - PubMed
  7. J Neurophysiol. 2010 Jul;104(1):119-27 - PubMed
  8. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2000 May;8(2):155-62 - PubMed
  9. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013 Feb;142(1):93-100 - PubMed
  10. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2003 May;11(2):139-45 - PubMed
  11. Neuron. 2005 Mar 3;45(5):801-14 - PubMed
  12. PLoS One. 2008;3(3):e1728 - PubMed
  13. Science. 2009 May 1;324(5927):646-8 - PubMed
  14. Psychol Bull. 2004 Sep;130(5):769-92 - PubMed
  15. Nat Neurosci. 2010 May;13(5):538-9 - PubMed
  16. Science. 2004 Oct 15;306(5695):503-7 - PubMed
  17. Neuron. 2009 Sep 24;63(6):733-45 - PubMed
  18. Cognition. 2008 Feb;106(2):994-1003 - PubMed
  19. Psychol Rev. 2009 Jul;116(3):602-19 - PubMed
  20. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e79310 - PubMed
  21. Nature. 1986 Apr 24-30;320(6064):748-50 - PubMed
  22. Behav Pharmacol. 2011 Jun;22(3):266-8 - PubMed
  23. Cogn Psychol. 2013 Dec;67(4):151-85 - PubMed
  24. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Aug;216(3):305-21 - PubMed
  25. J Exp Anal Behav. 2011 Nov;96(3):427-39 - PubMed
  26. Front Neurosci. 2014 Mar 18;8:50 - PubMed
  27. Mem Cognit. 2007 Jan;35(1):15-28 - PubMed
  28. J Neurosci. 2012 Feb 15;32(7):2276-86 - PubMed
  29. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014;67(6):1166-75 - PubMed
  30. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92681 - PubMed
  31. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 Sep 29;362(1485):1585-99 - PubMed
  32. J Abnorm Psychol. 2001 Aug;110(3):482-7 - PubMed
  33. Psychol Sci. 2008 Jan;19(1):22-4 - PubMed
  34. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jul 19;102(29):10393-8 - PubMed
  35. Front Psychol. 2011 Apr 20;2:59 - PubMed
  36. J Neurophysiol. 1976 Sep;39(5):1069-80 - PubMed
  37. Exp Brain Res. 2015 Dec;233(12):3597-611 - PubMed
  38. Neuron. 2008 Jul 10;59(1):161-72 - PubMed
  39. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001 Sep;76(2):235-43 - PubMed
  40. Nature. 2009 Sep 10;461(7261):263-6 - PubMed
  41. J Neurophysiol. 1976 Sep;39(5):1062-8 - PubMed
  42. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Aug;13(8):360-6 - PubMed

Publication Types