4.0 Article

Ten dollars today or 50 dollars after one month? Temporal discounting in Korsakoff syndrome

Journal

COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHIATRY
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 116-129

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13546805.2023.2173059

Keywords

Decision making; inhibition; Korsakoff syndrome; temporal discounting

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to investigate decision making in patients with Korsakoff syndrome (KS). The findings revealed that patients with KS tend to prefer immediate over future rewards compared to control participants. Additionally, temporal discounting was found to be correlated with inhibition in both populations. These results suggest that patients with KS may have difficulties suppressing the temptation of smaller, immediate rewards.
Objective: Little research has investigated decision making in patients with Korsakoff syndrome (KS). Specifically, to our knowledge, there is a lack of research investigating whether patients with KS may tend to prefer immediate over future rewards (i.e., temporal discounting). Further, we investigated the relationship between temporal discounting and inhibition. Methods: We, for the first time, invited patients with KS and control participants to perform a temporal discounting task, in which they answered questions probing preferences between an immediate, but smaller amount of money, and a delayed, but larger amount of money (e.g., would you prefer 10 dollars today or 50 dollars after one month?). Furthermore, inhibition was measured using the Stroop Colour Word Test. Results: Analysis demonstrated higher temporal discounting in patients with KS than in control participants. Temporal discounting in both populations was significantly correlated with inhibition. Conclusions: Patients with KS may have difficulties to suppress the temptation of smaller, but immediate, rewards.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available