Cueing the personal future to reduce discounting in intertemporal choice: Is episodic prospection necessary?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the ability to imagine detailed future experiences (i.e., episodic prospection) contribute to choices between immediate and delayed rewards? Individuals with amnesia do not show abnormally steep discounting in intertemporal choice, suggesting that neither medial temporal lobe (MTL) integrity nor episodic prospection is required for the valuation of future rewards (Kwan et al. (), Hippocampus, 22:1215-1219; Kwan et al. (2013), J Exp Psychol, 142:1355-1369 2013). However, hippocampally mediated episodic prospection in healthy adults reduces the discounting of future rewards (Peters and Büchel (2010), Neuron, 66:138-148; Benoit et al. (2011), J Neurosci, 31:6771-6779), raising the possibility that MTL damage causes more subtle impairments to this form of decision-making than noted in previous patient studies. Intertemporal choice appears normal in amnesic populations, yet they may be unable to use episodic prospection to adaptively modulate the value assigned to future rewards. To investigate how the extended hippocampal system, including the hippocampus and related MTL structures, contributes to the valuation of future rewards, we compared the performance of six amnesic cases with impaired episodic prospection to that of 20 control participants on two versions of an intertemporal choice task: a standard discounting task, and a cued version in which cues prompted them to imagine specific personal future events temporally contiguous with the receipt of delayed rewards. Amnesic individuals' intertemporal choices in the standard condition were indistinguishable from those of controls, replicating previous findings. Surprisingly, performance of the amnesic cases in the cued condition indicates that amnesia does not preclude flexible modulation of choices in response to future event cues, even in the absence of episodic prospection. Cueing the personal future to modulate decisions appears to constitute a less demanding or a qualitatively different (e.g., personal semantic) form of prospection that is not as sensitive to MTL damage as prospective narrative generation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".