. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jan 15.

Published in final edited form as: J Affect Disord. 2015 Nov 6;190:649–656. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.11.005

Table 3.

Associations between Delay Discounting, Probability Discounting, and Response Inhibition Task Performance

BD Group

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
1. DD AUC	--	.44^*	.40^*	.30	.40^*
2. PD AUC		--	−.18	−.27	.01
3. d’ No Go Condition			--	.78^**	.69^**
4. d’ Shift Condition				--	.66^**
5. d’ Target Condition					--

Control Group

1. DD AUC	--	.28	.25	.21	−.18
2. PD AUC		--	−.02	−.05	.07
3. d’ No Go Condition			--	.65^**	.66^**
4. d’ Shift Condition				--	.38^*
5. d’ Target Condition					--

Whole Sample

1. DD AUC	--	.33^*	.37^*	.27^*	.25
2. PD AUC		--	−.13	−.17	.00
3. d’ NoGo Condition			--	.71^**	.69^**
4. d’ Shift Condition				--	.52^**
5. d’ Target Condition					--

Note: p < .05,

^**

p < .001.

AUC, = area under the curve.BD = bipolar r disorders; DD, AUC = delay discounting area under the curve; PD AUC, = probability discounting area under the curve; larger AUC, values indicate less discounting behavior. Only participants with consistent PD or DD data used, resulting in slightly different n’s for each correlation.