Table 2.

Median days to meet the amount-discrimination and impulsive-choice stability criteria, and the median omissions and response latencies in the pre- and post-training impulsive-choice assessment (Q1-Q3).

	Pre-training			Post-training
	DE	IE	CONT	DE	IE	CONT
Days to discrimination criteria	4 (3–8)	4 (3–8)	4 (3–5)	4 (3–5)	3 (2–4)*	4 (3–5)
Days to stability criteria	18 (15–27)	15 (14–23)	16 (15–18)	16 (14–20)	17 (14–21)	18 (15–24)
Omissions	0.0 (0.0–0.0)	0.0 (0.0–0.0)	0.0 (0.0–0.0)	0.0 (0.0–0.0)	0.0 (0.0–0.5)	0.0 (0.0–0.0)
Response latency: Forced-choice SSR	1.6 (1.4–1.7)	1.6 (1.5–2.0)	1.8 (1.6–1.9)	1.8 (1.4–2.1)	1.5 (1.3–1.8)	1.4 (1.2–1.6)**
Response latency: Forced-choice LLR	1.5 (1.4–2.1)	2 (1.5–2.4)	1.6 (1.3–2)	1.4 (1.1–1.7)	1.5 (1.1–2.2)	1.2 (1–1.5)*
Response latency: Free-choice SSR	1.7 (1.5–2.0)	1.7 (1.3–2.4)	1.9 (1.6–2.1)	1.6 (1.4–2.2)	1.5 (1.3–1.9)	1.4 (1.2–1.5)**
Response latency: Free-choice LLR	1.5 (1.3–1.6)	1.4 (1.3–1.8)	1.5 (1.3–1.6)	1.5 (1.3–2.2)	1.3 (1.1–1.5)	1.2 (1.1–1.7)

Note: DE, IE, and CONT indicate delay-exposure, immediacy-exposure, and no-training control groups, respectively. Omissions and response latencies were calculated from the last 5 sessions of the impulsive-choice assessments. There were no significant between-groups differences, though there were several within-group changes from pre- to post-training. Significant changes in bold

^*p ≤ .05

^**p < .01.