Temporal reward discounting and ADHD: Task and symptom specific effects

Psychology Department, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Journal of Neural Transmission (Impact Factor: 2.4). 02/2008; 115(2):221-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00702-007-0813-6
Source: PubMed


This study investigated a new aspect of the association between ADHD symptoms and delay aversion. Participants were 55 undergraduate Psychology students with varying levels of self-reported ADHD symptoms. Various delay aversion tasks were used, including real and hypothetical temporal discounting tasks previously used in the field of ADHD. ADHD symptoms, specifically hyperactivity/impulsivity, were associated with steep discounting, but only when rewards and delays were real. These data suggest that (1) real temporal discounting tasks are more sensitive to ADHD-related delay aversion than hypothetical ones; (2) delay aversion may be a causal mechanism specifically associated with ADHD-Combined and Hyperactive/Impulsive Types but not Inattentive Type. These findings may help refine behavioral treatment approaches and models of ADHD.

Download full-text


Available from: Motofumi Sumiya,
  • Source
    • "Delay discounting in adult ADHD 333 sive symptoms (Scheres et al. 2007, Ströhle et al. 2008). A combination of increased and reduced activation was observed, with hypo-activity in the striatum for reward anticipation and increased activity in the DLPFC and orbitofrontal cortex for reward receipt. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An important characteristic of childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a bias towards small immediate versus larger delayed rewards, but it is not known if this symptom is also a feature of adult ADHD. A delay-discounting task was administered to participants with adult ADHD and a comparison group in conjunction with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Participants responded to a series of questions that required judgments between small sums of money available immediately and larger sums obtained after a temporal delay. Question parameters were adjusted by an adaptive algorithm designed to converge on each participant’s discounting indifference point, an individual set point at which there is equal valuation of both choices. In all participants, robust task activation was observed in regions previously identified in functional imaging studies of delay discounting. However, adults with ADHD showed less task activation in a number of regions including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, superior frontal gyrus, anterior cingulate, caudate nucleus and declive of the cerebellum. Additionally, the degree to which a participant discounted delayed rewards was inversely related to task activation in the cerebellum. The results suggest that the bias towards immediate rewards in childhood ADHD may not persist behaviorally, but instead present in adulthood as alterations in frontostriatal and frontocerebellar networks.
    Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis 10/2015; 75(3):2015. · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Accordingly, delay-related impulsivity has been shown for children and adolescents (Paloyelis et al., 2010; Demurie et al., 2012; Scheres et al., 2013) as well as for adults with ADHD (Hurst et al., 2011; Dai et al., 2013). Steep discouting has thereby been rather associated with symptoms of impulsivity and hyperactivity than with inattention (Scheres et al., 2008, 2010, 2013). Of note, in some studies adult patients with ADHD did not differ in discounting rates from healthy controls (Wilbertz et al., 2012, 2013), whereas others suggested that steeper discounting is confined to patients with ADHD with concurrent substance dependency (Crunelle et al., 2013). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Disorders such as borderline personality disorder (BPD) or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are characterized by impulsive behaviors. Impulsivity as used in clinical terms is very broadly defined and entails different categories including personality traits as well as different cognitive functions such as emotion regulation or interference reso-lution and impulse control. Impulse control as an executive function, however, is neither cognitively nor neurobehaviorally a unitary function. Recent findings from behavioral and cognitive neuroscience studies suggest related but dissociable components of impulse control along functional domains like selective attention, response selection, motivational control, and behavioral inhibition. In addition, behavioral and neural dissociations are seen for proactive vs. reactive inhibitory motor control.The prefrontal cortex with its sub-regions is the central structure in executing these impulse control functions. Based on these con-cepts of impulse control, neurobehavioral findings of studies in BPD and ADHD were reviewed and systematically compared. Overall, patients with BPD exhibited prefrontal dysfunctions across impulse control components rather in orbitofrontal, dorsomedial, and dorsolateral prefrontal regions, whereas patients with ADHD displayed disturbed activity mainly in ventrolateral and medial prefrontal regions. Prefrontal dysfunctions, however, varied depending on the impulse control component and from disorder to disorder. This suggests a dissociation of impulse control related frontal dysfunctions in BPD and ADHD, although only few studies are hitherto available to assess frontal dysfunctions along differ-ent impulse control components in direct comparison of these disorders.Yet, these findings might serve as a hypothesis for the future systematic assessment of impulse control com-ponents to understand differences and commonalities of prefrontal cortex dysfunction in impulsive disorders.
    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 09/2014; 8:698. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00698 · 3.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Impulsive individuals find it more difficult to wait for a delayed reward and hence prefer smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards (Kalenscher et al., 2006; Peters and Buechel, 2011). Thus, the impact of a delay on the subjective reward value is more pronounced in immature populations such as children and adolescents (Christakou et al., 2011) and in impulsiveness disorders such as ADHD (Scheres et al., 2008; Noreika et al., 2013), although there have also been negative findings (Scheres et al., 2006, 2010). Steeper temporal discounting, where delayed rewards have less subjective value, is thought to reflect an imbalance in the interplay between ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and lateral frontal systems that mediate the evaluation of future rewards and temporal foresight, respectively, and ventral striatal and limbic systems that respond to immediate rewards (Christakou et al., 2011; Peters and Buechel, 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are often comorbid and share cognitive abnormalities in temporal foresight. A key question is whether shared cognitive phenotypes are based on common or different underlying pathophysiologies and whether comorbid patients have additive neurofunctional deficits, resemble one of the disorders or have a different pathophysiology. We compared age- and IQ-matched boys with non-comorbid ADHD (18), non-comorbid ASD (15), comorbid ADHD and ASD (13) and healthy controls (18) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during a temporal discounting task. Only the ASD and the comorbid groups discounted delayed rewards more steeply. The fMRI data showed both shared and disorder-specific abnormalities in the three groups relative to controls in their brain-behaviour associations. The comorbid group showed both unique and more severe brain-discounting associations than controls and the non-comorbid patient groups in temporal discounting areas of ventromedial and lateral prefrontal cortex, ventral striatum and anterior cingulate, suggesting that comorbidity is neither an endophenocopy of the two pure disorders nor an additive pathology.
    Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 08/2014; 223(2). DOI:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2014.04.006 · 2.42 Impact Factor
Show more