Literature DB >> 16271818

Some decks are better than others: the effect of reinforcer type and task instructions on learning in the Iowa Gambling Task.

Gordon Fernie1, Richard J Tunney.   

Abstract

The Iowa Gambling Task (Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, & Anderson, 1994) has become widely used as a laboratory test of "real-life" decision-making. However, aspects of its administration that have been varied by researchers may differentially affect performance and the conclusions researchers can draw. Some researchers have used facsimile money reinforcers while others have used real money reinforcers. More importantly, the instructions participants receive have also been varied. While no differences have been reported in performance dependent on reinforcer type, no previous comparison of participants' instructions has been conducted. This is despite one set of instructions giving participants a clear hint about the nature of the task. Additionally, in previous research one set of instructions have not been used exclusively with one reinforcer type making any differential or cumulative effects of these factors difficult to interpret. The present study compared the effects of instruction and reinforcer type on IGT performance. When participants received instructions without a hint performance was affected by reinforcer type. This was not the case when the instructions included a hint. In a second IGT session performance was improved in participants who had received the hint instructions compared with those who had not.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16271818     DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2005.09.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Cogn        ISSN: 0278-2626            Impact factor:   2.310


  39 in total

1.  Recruitment of intuitive versus analytic thinking strategies affects the role of working memory in a gambling task.

Authors:  Marta Gozzi; Paolo Cherubini; Costanza Papagno; Emanuela Bricolo
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2010-08-10

Review 2.  Toward an animal model of gambling: delay discounting and the allure of unpredictable outcomes.

Authors:  Gregory J Madden; Eric E Ewan; Carla H Lagorio
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2006-12-15

Review 3.  Construct validity of the Iowa Gambling Task.

Authors:  Melissa T Buelow; Julie A Suhr
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2009-02-05       Impact factor: 7.444

4.  A gaze bias with coarse spatial indexing during a gambling task.

Authors:  Noha Mohsen Zommara; Muneyoshi Takahashi; Kajornvut Ounjai; Johan Lauwereyns
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 5.082

5.  Decision making and binge drinking: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Anna E Goudriaan; Emily R Grekin; Kenneth J Sher
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.455

6.  Decision making and response inhibition as predictors of heavy alcohol use: a prospective study.

Authors:  Anna E Goudriaan; Emily R Grekin; Kenneth J Sher
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 3.455

Review 7.  Clinical models of decision making in addiction.

Authors:  Mikhail N Koffarnus; Brent A Kaplan
Journal:  Pharmacol Biochem Behav       Date:  2017-08-26       Impact factor: 3.533

8.  Performance of young adult cannabis users on neurocognitive measures of impulsive behavior and their relationship to symptoms of cannabis use disorders.

Authors:  Raul Gonzalez; Randi Melissa Schuster; Robin J Mermelstein; Jasmin Vassileva; Eileen M Martin; Kathleen R Diviak
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 2.475

9.  Decision-making in long-term cocaine users: Effects of a cash monetary contingency on Gambling task performance.

Authors:  Nehal P Vadhan; Carl L Hart; Margaret Haney; Wilfred G van Gorp; Richard W Foltin
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2009-04-05       Impact factor: 4.492

10.  Predictors of decision-making on the Iowa Gambling Task: independent effects of lifetime history of substance use disorders and performance on the Trail Making Test.

Authors:  Danielle Barry; Nancy M Petry
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 2.310

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.