Failure to learn from repeated mistakes: persistent decision-making impairment as measured by the iowa gambling task in patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions
Abstract
Although frontal patients show impaired decision-making on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), there has been no follow-up study to date to determine whether there is recovery of function over time. We examined neurological participants’ performance on repeated administrations of the IGT over the course of 6 years. We found that, while non-neurological participants showed considerable improvement due to practice effects on the IGT, patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) damage persisted in showing impaired performance on each retest. These results validate the clinical observations that VMPFC dysfunction does not appear to be subject to autonomous recovery over time in real-life. (JINS, 2012, 18, 1–4)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The change in cognitive performances from pre to post-heating in this study exceeds the typical learning gains and known coefficients of variation (∼8%; 3-7%) for Stroop test reaction time and IGT net score respectively.
“However, based on practice gains reported in literature, the change in cognitive performances from pre to post-heating in our study exceeds the typical learning gains and known coefficients of variation (∼8 %; 3–7 %) for Stroop test reaction time and IGT net score respectively.54, 55, 56, 57”
From Influence of habitual physical activity on cognitive performance of healthy young adults after passive heat exposure (2026) · cites this paper as [56]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhuo, F., Gaurani, R. J., Low, I. C. C., Deshayes, T. A., Lee, J. K. W., Cheung, S. S., Choo, P. L., & Tan, X. R. (2026) · Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness · doi:10.1016/j.jesf.2025.200436 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Waters-Wood, S. M., Xiao, L., Denburg, N. L., Hernandez, M., & Bechara, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- University of Iowa (US)
- Venue
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2012-05-29
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 927-930
- ISSN
- 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7661
- OpenAlex
- W2132866831
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 1.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5p50ns019632-28)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA023051)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P50-NS019632)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- Iowa Gambling Task, decision-making impairment, practice effects, functional recovery, frontal lobe damage, neuropsychological rehabilitation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Brain Injuries, Cognition Disorders, Decision Making, Female, Games, Experimental, Humans, Learning Disabilities, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Prefrontal Cortex
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
