4.7 Article

Delay Discounting Correlates with Proportional Lateral Frontal Cortex Volumes

Journal

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 65, Issue 8, Pages 710-713

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.023

Keywords

Brain; decision making; delay discounting; frontal cortex; gray matter; impulsivity; magnetic resonance imaging; MRI

Funding

  1. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Functional neuroimaging experiments in healthy control subjects have shown that choosing between small and immediate rewards versus larger but deferred rewards in delay discounting (DD) tasks recruits mesofrontal and lateral frontal cortex. Might individual differences in frontocortical gray matter morphology be related to preference for immediate reward? Methods: We related DD in a laboratory decision-making task to proportional frontocortical gray matter (GM) volumes calculated from segmented magnetic resonance images in 29 healthy adults. Results: Dorsolateral and inferolateral frontal cortex GM volumes (corrected as a proportion of whole cerebral brain volume) each correlated inversely with preference for immediate gratification during decision making, as indexed by DD constant k. Conversely, neither proportional orbitofrontal or mesofrontal cortex GM volume nor cerebral brain volume (CBV) or total intracranial volume (ICV; a measure of maximal brain growth) significantly correlated with severity of DD. Conclusions: Severity of discounting of delayed rewards correlates with proportional lateral frontocortical GM morphology but not with whole brain measures. In light of evidence of frontocortical abnormalities in substance dependence and sociopathy, future studies can assess whether reduced frontocortical volume itself is a morphological marker or risk factor for inability to delay gratification in psychiatric disorders.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available