note that even though the most obvious parallels are between human laboratory-based tests of impulsivity and animal measures of impulsivity, performance on laboratory tasks in humans is more readily discussed as reflecting both ‘trait-based’ personality facets, as well as cognitive function and a variety of other ‘state-based’ factors that influence task performance. However, these issues and distinctions have received less explicit attention in the animal literature. Questions will need to be addressed, such as, are genetic findings that emerge with a particular paradigm in animal studies also related to the hypothesized analogous paradigm in human laboratory-based measures? Knowing that the two predominant methods of measuring impulsivity in animals (through response inhibition and delay aversion) show different external correlates, we might expect that similar differences would be found using response inhibition tasks and delay discounting paradigms in human laboratory studies. Experimental paradigms suitable for animals do exist to examine dimensions of rash action identified by research in human subjects, such as impact of task-irrelevant stimuli (e.g. Pavlovian examinations of context effects) and distorted estimates of elapsed time (e.g. the peak procedure for timing). However, individual differences in these measures have not been a primary focus of interest for researchers, nor have
