I can't wait! Neural reward signals in impulsive individuals exaggerate the difference between immediate and future rewards
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waiting for rewards is difficult, and highly impulsive individuals with low self-control have an especially hard time with it. Here, we investigated whether neural responses to rewards in a delayed gratification task predict impulsivity and self-control. The EEG was recorded from participants engaged in a guessing game in which on each trial they could win either a large or small reward, paid either now or after 6 months. Ratings confirmed that participants preferred immediate, large rewards over small, delayed rewards. Electrophysiological reward signals reflecting the difference between immediate and future rewards predicted self-report measures of impulsivity and self-control. Further, these signals were highly reliable across two sessions over a 1-week interval, showing high temporal stability like stable personality traits. These results suggest that greater valuation of immediate rewards causes impulsive individuals to redirect control away from delayed rewards, indicating why it is so hard for them to wait.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it