CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 99

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Real versus facsimile reinforcers on the Iowa Gambling Task

Bowman, Caroline H., Turnbull, Oliver H.·2003·Brain and Cognition
DOI 10.1016/s0278-2626(03)00111-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Iowa Gambling Task (([Bechara et al., 1994]) is an effective neuropsychological tool for the assessment of 'real-life' decision-making in a laboratory environment. It has been employed in a wide range of circumstances, though researchers have sometimes employed real money reinforcers instead of the facsimile (or 'monopoly'-type) money used by. The present study investigated whether the type of reinforcer produced any differences in performance. There were no significant differences between the two conditions, though the Facsimile Money condition produced a greater range (and a higher standard deviation) than the Real Money condition. This finding is especially important when considering the Gambling Task as a tool in clinical neuropsychology--where there are risks, at the individual subject level, of both false positive and false negative classification errors.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0278-2626(03)00111-8

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Bechara, 1998, Dissociation of working memory from decision making within the human prefrontal cortex, The Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 428, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-01-00428.1998 · DOI
  2. Bechara, 1997, Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy, Science, 275, 1293, 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bechara, 2001, Decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers, Neuropsychologia, 39, 376, 10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00136-6 · DOI
  4. Bechara, 2000, Characterisation of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions, Brain, 123, 2189, 10.1093/brain/123.11.2189 · DOI
  5. Bechara, 1996, Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to prefrontal cortex, Cerebral Cortex, 6, 215, 10.1093/cercor/6.2.215 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Grant, 2000, Drug abusers show impaired performance in a laboratory test of decision making, Neuropsychologia, 38, 1180, 10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00158-X · DOI
  7. Newman, 1987, Response perseveration in psychopaths, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 145, 10.1037/0021-843X.96.2.145 · DOI
  8. Schmitt, 1999, Testing Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis with psychopathic individuals: Risk takers or risk averse?, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 538, 10.1037/0021-843X.108.3.538 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bowman, C. H., & Turnbull, O. H.
Venue
Brain and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-11
Volume
53
Issue
2
Pages
207-210
ISSN
0278-2626
DOI
10.1016/s0278-2626(03)00111-8
Cited by
99
References
2
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review