Tiffany Galtress, Aaron Smith & Kimberly Kirkpatrick · DRL intervention effects on an impulsive...
18
DRL intervention effects on an impulsive choice task Tiffany Galtress, Aaron Smith & Kimberly Kirkpatrick
Transcript of Tiffany Galtress, Aaron Smith & Kimberly Kirkpatrick · DRL intervention effects on an impulsive...
DRL intervention effects on an impulsive choice task
Tiffany Galtress, Aaron Smith & Kimberly Kirkpatrick
IMPULSIVE CHOICE High levels of impulsive choice:
ADHD (e.g., Barkley et al., 2001; Kuntsi et al., 2001; Solonto et al., 2001)
Gambling (e.g., Dixon et al., 2003; 2006)
Substance abuse (e.g., Kirby & Petry, 2004; Madden et al 1997; Mitchell, 1999;
Vichinich & Simpson, 1998)
Relapse in smoking cessation treatment programs (Krishnan-Sarin et al, 2007; Yoon et al, 2007)
CHOICE - DELAY
In 10 minutes or in 30 minutes?
EASY DECISION: SOONER (S) OR LATER (L)
CHOICE - AMOUNT
One cookie or two?
EASY DECISION: SMALL (S) OR LARGE (L)
DELAY VS. AMOUNT
One cookie in 10 minutes or two cookies in 30 minutes?
DIFFICULT DECISION: SMALLER SOONER (SS) OR LARGER LATER (LL)
IMPULSIVE CHOICE
One cookie in 10 minutes or two cookies in 30 minutes?
DIFFICULT DECISION: SS or LL?
The impulsive choice would be to take the one cookie SS option. Why would people lose self-control?
IMPULSIVE CHOICE
One cookie in 10 minutes or two cookies in 30 minutes?
DIFFICULT DECISION: SS or LL?
Inaccurate delay information may lead to misinformed choice behavior
METHOD
Measure rats percentage LL choice pre-intervention
10 s - 1 pellet vs. 30 s - 2 pellet
METHOD
Measure rats percentage LL choice pre-intervention
10 s - 1 pellet vs. 30 s - 2 pellet
DRL intervention on intervals used in the choice task
10 s , 30 s, or 10 s and 30 s
METHOD
Measure rats percentage LL choice pre-intervention
10 s - 1 pellet vs. 30 s - 2 pellet
DRL intervention on intervals used in the choice task
10 s , 30 s, or 10 s and 30 s
Measure rats percentage LL choice post-intervention
10 s – 1 pellet vs. 30 s – 2 pellet
PERCENTAGE LL CHOICE
0
20
40
60
80
100
PRE POST
PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
LL
CH
OIC
E
MOMENTARY
Large individual differences
MOLAR
DRL INTERVENTION
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
DRL 10
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
DRL 30
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
DRL 10 (30)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
DRL (10) 30
RE
SP
ON
SE
PR
OB
AB
ILIT
Y
LOG INTER-RESPONSE TIME (S)
SS LEVER TIMING
0 5 10 15 20 25
PRE
POST
TIME IN TRIAL (S)
SS
HIG
H
STA
TE
STA
RT
T
IME
S
PRE
POSTSS
HIG
H
STA
TE
EN
D
TIM
ES
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PRE POST
ME
AN
SS
HIG
H S
TA
TE
R
ES
PO
NS
E R
AT
E (
RP
M)
LL LEVER TIMING
0 10 20 30 40 50
PRE
POST
TIME IN TRIAL (S)
LL
HIG
H
STA
TE
STA
RT
T
IME
S
PRE
POSTLL
HIG
H
STA
TE
EN
D
TIM
ES
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PRE POST
ME
AN
LL
HIG
H S
TA
TE
R
ES
PO
NS
E R
AT
E (
RP
M)
PERCENTAGE LL CHOICE
0
20
40
60
80
100
PRE POST
PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
LL
CH
OIC
E
RESULTS
DRL intervention training led to more accurate timing of delay to choice outcomes.
This resulted in increased LL choice – increased self-control.
This could lead to the development of behavioral interventions to improve self-control
HOWEVER…
We need to replicate the effect with a control group
Wish us luck!
Thank you
Paul Brungardt
Andrew Marshall
Jon Smith
Marina Vilardo
