Temporal discounting.

<p>Indifference points mark the subjective value at each interval between soon/small and late/large option. The advantageous choice model shows the discounting for choosing always the option with the best time/money ratio. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean over participants.</p

Beta-weights from time-continuous multiple regression analysis.

<p>Beta-weights represent the different influences on the mouse movement angle on the XY plane (shaded areas around the curves indicate the standard error of beta-weights for each time-slice). Left, beta-weights for advantageous choices. Right, beta-weights for disadvantageous choices. Above each graph, consecutive time-slices with a significant difference from zero (8 consecutive <i>t</i>-tests) are marked for each beta-weight.</p

Harder than Expected: Increased Conflict in Clearly Disadvantageous Delayed Choices in a Computer Game

<div><p>When choosing between immediate and temporally delayed goods, people sometimes decide disadvantageously. Here, we aim to provide process-level insight into differences between individually determined advantageous and disadvantageous choices. Participants played a computer game, deciding between two different rewards of varying size and distance by moving an agent towards the chosen reward. We calculated individual models of advantageous choices and characterized the decision process by analyzing mouse movements. The larger amount of participants’ choices was classified as advantageous and the disadvantageous choices were biased towards choosing sooner/smaller rewards. The deflection of mouse movements indicated more conflict in disadvantageous choices compared with advantageous choices when the utilities of the options differed clearly. Further process oriented analysis revealed that disadvantageous choices were biased by a tendency for choice-repetition and an undervaluation of the value information in favour of the delay information, making rather simple choices harder than could be expected from the properties of the decision situation.</p></div

The experimental screen.

<p>Participants chose between soon/small and late/large rewards (coins of different size with a red border), moving an agent (red smiling face) across a playing field by clicking with the mouse into horizontally or vertically adjacent fields (white border). They were instructed to maximize their gain within the limited time of 8 minutes per block. The remaining time (“Zeit”) within a block and the cumulated credits (“Gewinn”) were presented next to the playing field.</p

Mouse movement trajectories.

<p>Movements reach from the starting location at the begin of a trial to the first click into a movement field, leading to advantageous (here: left) or disadvantageous (here: right) choices. Direct choice paths mark the shortest way to the movement field. Deflection of trajectories from the direct choice path to the neutral midline between two movement fields indicates conflict in the decision process. Conflict is lowest for clearly advantageous choices and highest for clearly disadvantageous choices. Shaded areas mark standard errors.</p

Cognitive performance.

<p>Mean response time (RT) and mean error rates for the Prospective memory (PM) block and the Test block as a function of trial type (PM block: standard vs. PM; Test block: standard vs. PM_REPEATED) and treatment (stress vs. no stress). Error bars represent standard errors. </p

Neuroendocrine measures.

<p>Mean salivary α-amylase (sAA) and cortisol levels for the stress group and the no-stress group over the time-course of the experimental session (minutes before or after the Trier Social Stress Test [TSST] or the control condition, respectively). Error bars represent standard errors. *<i>p</i> < .05, **<i>p</i> < .01, ***<i>p</i> < .001.</p

Procedure.

<p>(A) Schematic illustration of the procedure with the components training of the cognitive task, treatment (i.e., Trier Social Stress Test, TSST, or standardized control situation) and cognitive testing (including testing parts 1-4). Note that each part comprised two PM block-Test block cycles. In addition, measurement time-points of salivary α-amylase (sAA), cortisol and mental-state with the German “Mehrdimensionaler Befindlichkeitsfragebogen” (multidimensional mental-state questionnaire, MDBF [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0085685#B31" target="_blank">31</a>]) are given. Note that at time point -1 min, the saliva sample was taken before TSST or control treatment, whereas the MDBF was completed after treatment instruction, to enable assessing anticipation of the upcoming treatment. (B) Example trial sequence of the prospective memory (PM) block and Test block. As ongoing task participants performed animate vs. inanimate categorizations on German nouns in all trials except for PM trials, on which they were required to press the spacebar. Aftereffects of completed intentions were assessed in the Test block as ongoing-task performance differences between PM_REPEATED compared to standard trials. Note colored framing of trial types was not present in the experiment but serves exclusively to illustrate different trial types in this figure.</p

Results of Task 2 (Passive Viewing).

<p>All results: p<0.05 FWE corrected for multiple comparisons; ^*p<0.05 FWE corrected for region of interest; BA Brodmann area; x,y,z, respective coordinates of MNI template.</p

Task 2 (passive viewing).

<p>Upper row: Sustained downregulation of amygdala activation for formerly regulated negative pictures (p<0.05 FWE corrected for ROI; this effect was also significant for the left amygdala (not shown here)). Bottom row: Amygdala activation during presentation of formerly regulated negative pictures in task 2 correlated positively with individual differences in peak rebound activation in task 1 (p<0.05, FWE corrected for ROI; this effect was also significant at a lower statistical level (p = 0.008 uncorrected) for the left amygdala (not shown here)).</p