↓ Skip to main content

A Computational Analysis of Aberrant Delay Discounting in Psychiatric Disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Computational Analysis of Aberrant Delay Discounting in Psychiatric Disorders
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01948
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giles W. Story, Michael Moutoussis, Raymond J. Dolan

Abstract

Impatience for reward is a facet of many psychiatric disorders. We draw attention to a growing literature finding greater discounting of delayed reward, an important aspect of impatience, across a range of psychiatric disorders. We propose these findings are best understood by considering the goals and motivation for discounting future reward. We characterize these as arising from either the opportunity costs of waiting or the uncertainty associated with delayed reward. We link specific instances of higher discounting in psychiatric disorder to heightened subjective estimates of either of these factors. We propose these costs are learned and represented based either on a flexible cognitive model of the world, an accumulation of previous experience, or through evolutionary specification. Any of these can be considered suboptimal for the individual if the resulting behavior results in impairments in personal and social functioning and/or in distress. By considering the neurochemical and neuroanatomical implementation of these processes, we illustrate how this approach can in principle unite social, psychological and biological conceptions of impulsive choice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 102 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 22%
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 36%
Neuroscience 16 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 24 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2019.
All research outputs
#5,925,470
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,557
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,076
of 398,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#167
of 445 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 445 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.