A Model Guided Approach to Evoke Homogeneous Behavior During Temporal Reward and Loss Discounting.

computational modeling computational psychiatry design optimization loss discounting reward discounting temporal discounting

Journal

Frontiers in psychiatry
ISSN: 1664-0640
Titre abrégé: Front Psychiatry
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101545006

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 30 12 2021
accepted: 18 05 2022
entrez: 8 7 2022
pubmed: 9 7 2022
medline: 9 7 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The tendency to devaluate future options as a function of time, known as delay discounting, is associated with various factors such as psychiatric illness and personality. Under identical experimental conditions, individuals may therefore strongly differ in the degree to which they discount future options. In delay discounting tasks, this inter-individual variability inevitably results in an unequal number of discounted trials per subject, generating difficulties in linking delay discounting to psychophysiological and neural correlates. Many studies have therefore focused on assessing delay discounting adaptively. Here, we extend these approaches by developing an adaptive paradigm which aims at inducing more comparable and homogeneous discounting frequencies across participants on a dimensional scale. The proposed approach probabilistically links a (common) discounting function to behavior to obtain a probabilistic model, and then exploits the model to obtain a formal condition which defines how to construe experimental trials so as to induce any desired discounting probability. We first infer subject-level models on behavior on a non-adaptive delay discounting task and then use these models to generate adaptive trials designed to evoke graded relative discounting frequencies of 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7 in each participant. We further compare and evaluate common models in the field through out-of-sample prediction error estimates, to iteratively improve the trial-generating model and paradigm. The developed paradigm successfully increases discounting behavior during both reward and loss discounting. Moreover, it evokes graded relative choice frequencies in line with model-based expectations (i.e., 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7) suggesting that we can successfully homogenize behavior. Our model comparison analyses indicate that hyperboloid models are superior in predicting unseen discounting behavior to more conventional hyperbolic and exponential models. We report out-of-sample error estimates as well as commonalities and differences between reward and loss discounting, demonstrating for instance lower discounting rates, as well as differences in delay perception in loss discounting. The present work proposes a model-based framework to evoke graded responses linked to cognitive function at a single subject level. Such a framework may be used in the future to measure cognitive functions on a dimensional rather than dichotomous scale.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
The tendency to devaluate future options as a function of time, known as delay discounting, is associated with various factors such as psychiatric illness and personality. Under identical experimental conditions, individuals may therefore strongly differ in the degree to which they discount future options. In delay discounting tasks, this inter-individual variability inevitably results in an unequal number of discounted trials per subject, generating difficulties in linking delay discounting to psychophysiological and neural correlates. Many studies have therefore focused on assessing delay discounting adaptively. Here, we extend these approaches by developing an adaptive paradigm which aims at inducing more comparable and homogeneous discounting frequencies across participants on a dimensional scale.
Method UNASSIGNED
The proposed approach probabilistically links a (common) discounting function to behavior to obtain a probabilistic model, and then exploits the model to obtain a formal condition which defines how to construe experimental trials so as to induce any desired discounting probability. We first infer subject-level models on behavior on a non-adaptive delay discounting task and then use these models to generate adaptive trials designed to evoke graded relative discounting frequencies of 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7 in each participant. We further compare and evaluate common models in the field through out-of-sample prediction error estimates, to iteratively improve the trial-generating model and paradigm.
Results UNASSIGNED
The developed paradigm successfully increases discounting behavior during both reward and loss discounting. Moreover, it evokes graded relative choice frequencies in line with model-based expectations (i.e., 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7) suggesting that we can successfully homogenize behavior. Our model comparison analyses indicate that hyperboloid models are superior in predicting unseen discounting behavior to more conventional hyperbolic and exponential models. We report out-of-sample error estimates as well as commonalities and differences between reward and loss discounting, demonstrating for instance lower discounting rates, as well as differences in delay perception in loss discounting.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
The present work proposes a model-based framework to evoke graded responses linked to cognitive function at a single subject level. Such a framework may be used in the future to measure cognitive functions on a dimensional rather than dichotomous scale.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35800024
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.846119
pmc: PMC9253427
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

846119

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Thome, Pinger, Halli, Durstewitz, Sommer, Kirsch and Koppe.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Behav Res Methods. 2008 Nov;40(4):940-53
pubmed: 19001385
J Exp Anal Behav. 2019 Nov;112(3):254-272
pubmed: 31694068
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:641-77
pubmed: 24679180
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Aug;216(3):305-21
pubmed: 21373791
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014 Jun;22(3):222-8
pubmed: 24708144
Nature. 1949 Oct 1;164(4170):581
pubmed: 18142459
Psychon Bull Rev. 2017 Apr;24(2):536-546
pubmed: 27246089
J Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Feb;27(2):387-99
pubmed: 25208743
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003 Jul;28(7):1356-65
pubmed: 12784123
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010 Dec;18(6):546-52
pubmed: 21186929
J Psychopharmacol. 2019 Mar;33(3):316-325
pubmed: 30676200
Behav Processes. 2004 Nov 30;67(3):343-56
pubmed: 15518985
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 26;13(1):e0191357
pubmed: 29373590
Psychol Bull. 1975 Jul;82(4):463-96
pubmed: 1099599
Neuroimage. 2020 May 1;211:116634
pubmed: 32081783
Sci Adv. 2021 Nov 19;7(47):eabh2399
pubmed: 34788104
R Soc Open Sci. 2021 Apr 21;8(4):201925
pubmed: 33996122
J Neurosci. 2010 Jun 30;30(26):8888-96
pubmed: 20592211
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2012 Jan;219(2):527-36
pubmed: 22169883
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2021 Jul;16(4):789-802
pubmed: 33482070
Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 15;11(1):18354
pubmed: 34526520
Brain. 1999 Oct;122 ( Pt 10):1973-87
pubmed: 10506098
Front Neurosci. 2013 May 27;7:40
pubmed: 23750125
Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2020 Aug 10;13:653-663
pubmed: 32848482
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2016 Sep;233(18):3361-70
pubmed: 27449350
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36781
pubmed: 22574225
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Jun;50(3):1166-1186
pubmed: 28726177
Addict Biol. 2014 Jul;19(4):743-53
pubmed: 23231650
Neuropsychology. 2019 Mar;33(3):417-424
pubmed: 30688494
J Exp Anal Behav. 2013 Jan;99(1):58-73
pubmed: 23344988
J Exp Anal Behav. 2017 May;107(3):388-401
pubmed: 28467023
Behav Brain Funct. 2008 Aug 15;4:38
pubmed: 18706088
Behav Processes. 2016 Oct;131:15-23
pubmed: 27498073
Int J Neurosci. 2007 Mar;117(3):359-68
pubmed: 17365120
Psychiatry Res. 2014 Mar 30;221(3):195-203
pubmed: 24434194
Behav Processes. 2015 Feb;111:55-9
pubmed: 25447508
Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 25;6:31902
pubmed: 27557798
Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Oct;26(5):1596-1618
pubmed: 31515732
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 31;10(1):12913
pubmed: 32737357
Front Behav Neurosci. 2021 Nov 26;15:786358
pubmed: 34899207
Behav Processes. 2010 Jan;83(1):36-40
pubmed: 19766702
Appetite. 2017 May 1;112:59-68
pubmed: 28087369
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;69(2):177-86
pubmed: 22310505
Neuroimage. 2014 Sep;98:42-9
pubmed: 24799134
Behav Processes. 2006 Nov 1;73(3):278-84
pubmed: 16926071
Physiol Behav. 2007 Aug 15;91(5):579-87
pubmed: 17477941
Nat Neurosci. 2007 Dec;10(12):1625-33
pubmed: 17982449
J Neurosci. 2010 Oct 20;30(42):14080-90
pubmed: 20962229
J Neurosci. 2009 Jul 29;29(30):9575-81
pubmed: 19641120
Front Neurosci. 2014 Mar 18;8:50
pubmed: 24672421
Behav Res Methods. 2015 Mar;47(1):1-12
pubmed: 24683129
Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2015;75(3):326-38
pubmed: 26581388
Addict Behav Rep. 2020 Nov 28;12:100320
pubmed: 33364328
Brain Res. 2012 Oct 10;1478:36-47
pubmed: 22940231
Science. 2009 May 1;324(5927):646-8
pubmed: 19407204
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011 Apr;12(4):231-42
pubmed: 21407245
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2021 Feb;238(2):399-410
pubmed: 33216166
Front Psychol. 2021 Apr 16;12:643670
pubmed: 33935897
Behav Res Methods. 2016 Dec;48(4):1608-1620
pubmed: 26542975
J Comput Neurosci. 2018 Dec;45(3):163-172
pubmed: 30377880
J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Nov;64(3):263-76
pubmed: 16812772
Psychol Addict Behav. 2022 May;36(3):260-270
pubmed: 34435835
J Exp Anal Behav. 2011 Nov;96(3):427-39
pubmed: 22084499
Cereb Cortex Commun. 2020;1(1):tgaa025
pubmed: 32864617
Neuron. 2006 Mar 2;49(5):757-63
pubmed: 16504950
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 Nov 1;112(1-2):54-61
pubmed: 20580495
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020 Jan;108:295-307
pubmed: 31778679
JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Nov 1;76(11):1176-1186
pubmed: 31461131
J Exp Anal Behav. 2006 May;85(3):425-35
pubmed: 16776060
Psychol Bull. 2004 Sep;130(5):769-92
pubmed: 15367080
J Neurosci. 2009 Dec 16;29(50):15727-34
pubmed: 20016088
J Neurosci. 2009 Jul 8;29(27):8839-46
pubmed: 19587291
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Sep;80:703-728
pubmed: 28764976
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009 Oct 1;104(3):197-203
pubmed: 19570621
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 21;10(1):12091
pubmed: 32694654
Neuroimage. 2017 Nov 1;161:56-66
pubmed: 28803942
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Feb;50(1):236-249
pubmed: 28289888
Addict Biol. 2020 Mar;25(2):e12866
pubmed: 31859437
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2017 Oct;41(10):1794-1807
pubmed: 28815629
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017 Feb 17;18(3):158-171
pubmed: 28209979
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015 Aug;39(8):1501-9
pubmed: 26173617
Psychol Rev. 1957 May;64(3):153-81
pubmed: 13441853
J Exp Anal Behav. 2002 Mar;77(2):129-46
pubmed: 11936247
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2021 Jan;46(1):176-190
pubmed: 32668442
Addict Behav. 2021 Mar;114:106751
pubmed: 33310692
Neuroimage. 2009 Mar 1;45(1):143-50
pubmed: 19071223
J Exp Anal Behav. 2013 Nov;100(3):269-81
pubmed: 24037826
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1997 Aug;5(3):256-62
pubmed: 9260073
Behav Processes. 2013 Nov;100:116-22
pubmed: 23954833
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019 Nov;106:182-201
pubmed: 30529361
Pers Individ Dif. 2015 Apr;76:68-74
pubmed: 25844002
Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 May;15(5):227-39
pubmed: 21497544
Behav Processes. 2011 Jan;86(1):164-7
pubmed: 20932882
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Jun;77:247-285
pubmed: 28263758
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Apr;143(2):850-86
pubmed: 23957282
J Exp Anal Behav. 2014 Mar;101(2):186-200
pubmed: 24745086
J Risk Uncertain. 2016 Jun;52(3):233-254
pubmed: 29332995
J Exp Anal Behav. 2015 Jan;103(1):218-33
pubmed: 25556903
J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Mar;55(2):233-44
pubmed: 2037827
Front Psychol. 2018 Nov 28;9:2306
pubmed: 30546331
Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Sep;1(3):383-9
pubmed: 24203522
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2020 Dec;149(12):2289-2313
pubmed: 32391703
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e47225
pubmed: 23226198
PLoS One. 2020 May 22;15(5):e0233337
pubmed: 32442186
Mem Cognit. 2006 Jun;34(4):914-28
pubmed: 17063921
Behav Processes. 2006 Sep;73(2):149-55
pubmed: 16759821
Trends Mol Med. 2018 Feb;24(2):121-128
pubmed: 29307501
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972 Feb;21(2):204-18
pubmed: 5010404
Neuroimage. 2022 Jun;253:119080
pubmed: 35276369

Auteurs

Janine Thome (J)

Department of Theoretical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Mathieu Pinger (M)

Department of Clinical Psychology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Patrick Halli (P)

Department of Clinical Psychology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Daniel Durstewitz (D)

Department of Theoretical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Wolfgang H Sommer (WH)

Institute for Psychopharmacology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Peter Kirsch (P)

Department of Clinical Psychology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Institute of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.

Georgia Koppe (G)

Department of Theoretical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Classifications MeSH