| Title |
Analysis of hand kinematics reveals inter-individual differences in intertemporal decision dynamics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-015-4427-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cinzia Calluso, Giorgia Committeri, Giovanni Pezzulo, Nathan Lepora, Annalisa Tosoni |
| Abstract |
During intertemporal decisions, the preference for smaller, sooner reward over larger-delayed rewards (temporal discounting, TD) exhibits substantial inter-subject variability; however, it is currently unclear what are the mechanisms underlying this apparently idiosyncratic behavior. To answer this question, here we recorded and analyzed mouse movement kinematics during intertemporal choices in a large sample of participants (N = 86). Results revealed a specific pattern of decision dynamics associated with the selection of "immediate" versus "delayed" response alternatives, which well discriminated between a "discounter" versus a "farsighted" behavior-thus representing a reliable behavioral marker of TD preferences. By fitting the Drift Diffusion Model to the data, we showed that differences between discounter and farsighted subjects could be explained in terms of different model parameterizations, corresponding to the use of different choice mechanisms in the two groups. While farsighted subjects were biased toward the "delayed" option, discounter subjects were not correspondingly biased toward the "immediate" option. Rather, as shown by the dynamics of evidence accumulation over time, their behavior was characterized by high choice uncertainty. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 25 | 44% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 September 2015.
All research outputs
#15,345,593
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,005
of 3,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,539
of 267,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#28
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.