Abstract

Impulsive choice is typically measured by presenting smaller-sooner (SS) versus larger-later (LL) rewards, with biases towards the SS indicating impulsivity. The current study tested rats on different impulsive choice procedures with LL delay manipulations to assess same-form and alternate-form test-retest reliability. In the systematic-GE procedure (Green & Estle, 2003), the LL delay increased after several sessions of training; in the systematic-ER procedure (Evenden & Ryan, 1996), the delay increased within each session; and in the adjusting-M procedure (Mazur, 1987), the delay changed after each block of trials within a session based on each rat's choices in the previous block. In addition to measuring choice behavior, we also assessed temporal tracking of the LL delays using the median times of responding during LL trials. The two systematic procedures yielded similar results in both choice and temporal tracking measures following extensive training, whereas the adjusting procedure resulted in relatively more impulsive choices and poorer temporal tracking. Overall, the three procedures produced acceptable same form test-retest reliability over time, but the adjusting procedure did not show significant alternate form test-retest reliability with the other two procedures. The results suggest that systematic procedures may supply better measurements of impulsive choice in rats.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call