↓ Skip to main content

Hierarchical Bayesian estimation and hypothesis testing for delay discounting tasks

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Hierarchical Bayesian estimation and hypothesis testing for delay discounting tasks
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, November 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13428-015-0672-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin T. Vincent

Abstract

A state-of-the-art data analysis procedure is presented to conduct hierarchical Bayesian inference and hypothesis testing on delay discounting data. The delay discounting task is a key experimental paradigm used across a wide range of disciplines from economics, cognitive science, and neuroscience, all of which seek to understand how humans or animals trade off the immediacy verses the magnitude of a reward. Bayesian estimation allows rich inferences to be drawn, along with measures of confidence, based upon limited and noisy behavioural data. Hierarchical modelling allows more precise inferences to be made, thus using sometimes expensive or difficult to obtain data in the most efficient way. The proposed probabilistic generative model describes how participants compare the present subjective value of reward choices on a trial-to-trial basis, estimates participant- and group-level parameters. We infer discount rate as a function of reward size, allowing the magnitude effect to be measured. Demonstrations are provided to show how this analysis approach can aid hypothesis testing. The analysis is demonstrated on data from the popular 27-item monetary choice questionnaire (Kirby, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 457-462 2009), but will accept data from a range of protocols, including adaptive procedures. The software is made freely available to researchers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 107 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 26%
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Master 16 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 51 46%
Neuroscience 13 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 19 17%
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 23 November 2018.
All research outputs
#6,875,065
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#839
of 2,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,944
of 296,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#8
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 296,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.