↓ Skip to main content

The Relationship between Impulsive Choice and Impulsive Action: A Cross-Species Translational Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
197 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
293 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The Relationship between Impulsive Choice and Impulsive Action: A Cross-Species Translational Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0036781
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nienke Broos, Lianne Schmaal, Joost Wiskerke, Lennard Kostelijk, Thomas Lam, Nicky Stoop, Lonneke Weierink, Jannemieke Ham, Eco J. C. de Geus, Anton N. M. Schoffelmeer, Wim van den Brink, Dick J. Veltman, Taco J. de Vries, Tommy Pattij, Anna E. Goudriaan

Abstract

Maladaptive impulsivity is a core symptom in various psychiatric disorders. However, there is only limited evidence available on whether different measures of impulsivity represent largely unrelated aspects or a unitary construct. In a cross-species translational study, thirty rats were trained in impulsive choice (delayed reward task) and impulsive action (five-choice serial reaction time task) paradigms. The correlation between those measures was assessed during baseline performance and after pharmacological manipulations with the psychostimulant amphetamine and the norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor atomoxetine. In parallel, to validate the animal data, 101 human subjects performed analogous measures of impulsive choice (delay discounting task, DDT) and impulsive action (immediate and delayed memory task, IMT/DMT). Moreover, all subjects completed the Stop Signal Task (SST, as an additional measure of impulsive action) and filled out the Barratt impulsiveness scale (BIS-11). Correlations between DDT and IMT/DMT were determined and a principal component analysis was performed on all human measures of impulsivity. In both rats and humans measures of impulsive choice and impulsive action did not correlate. In rats the within-subject pharmacological effects of amphetamine and atomoxetine did not correlate between tasks, suggesting distinct underlying neural correlates. Furthermore, in humans, principal component analysis identified three independent factors: (1) self-reported impulsivity (BIS-11); (2) impulsive action (IMT/DMT and SST); (3) impulsive choice (DDT). This is the first study directly comparing aspects of impulsivity using a cross-species translational approach. The present data reveal the non-unitary nature of impulsivity on a behavioral and pharmacological level. Collectively, this warrants a stronger focus on the relative contribution of distinct forms of impulsivity in psychopathology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Austria 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 280 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 72 25%
Student > Master 54 18%
Researcher 35 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 9%
Student > Bachelor 25 9%
Other 54 18%
Unknown 28 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 102 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 17%
Neuroscience 43 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Other 22 8%
Unknown 47 16%
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 June 2021.
All research outputs
#5,957,236
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#71,049
of 193,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,308
of 163,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,074
of 3,708 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 163,497 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,708 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 70% of its contemporaries.