CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is deck C an advantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task?

Chiu, Yao-Chu, Lin, Ching-Hung·2007·Behavioral and Brain Functions
DOI 10.1186/1744-9081-3-37PMC PMC1995208
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1744-9081-3-37

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Mean deck preference during first session. The participants preferred decks B and D to decks A and C. The high-frequency gain decks (B, D) seem more attractive to normal decision makers. The final-outcome hypothesis of the Iowa group is invalidated by the "prominent deck B and sunken deck C" phenomenon.
Figure 1 Mean deck preference during first session. The participants preferred decks B and D to decks A and C. The high-frequency gain decks (B, D) seem more attractive to normal decision makers. The final-outcome hypothesis of the Iowa group is invalidated by the "prominent deck B and sunken deck C" phenomenon.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Mean number of card selection in blocks during stage 1. The learning curve between the advantageous decks (A, C) and disadvantageous decks (B, D) displays no cross over. Based on the suggestions of the Iowa group regarding final-outcome, participants should gradually shift their choice from decks A and B to decks C and D. However, this study does not support this proposal.
Figure 2 Mean number of card selection in blocks during stage 1. The learning curve between the advantageous decks (A, C) and disadvantageous decks (B, D) displays no cross over. Based on the suggestions of the Iowa group regarding final-outcome, participants should gradually shift their choice from decks A and B to decks C and D. However, this study does not support this proposal.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Mean deck preference during second session. This additional session aims to verify learning status after the game. The results replicate the finding of the first session, with participants being insensitive to the bad final-outcome of deck B and the good final-outcome of deck C. The present observation invalidates the suggestion of the Iowa group that normal decision makers can foresee final benefit.
Figure 3 Mean deck preference during second session. This additional session aims to verify learning status after the game. The results replicate the finding of the first session, with participants being insensitive to the bad final-outcome of deck B and the good final-outcome of deck C. The present observation invalidates the suggestion of the Iowa group that normal decision makers can foresee final benefit.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Mean number of cards selected in blocks during stage 2. The learning curve in stage 2 also replicated the findings from stage 1, with decks A and C exhibiting lower preference than decks B and D. Unexpectedly, participants preferred the high-frequency gain-decks (B, D) to the other two decks (A, C) even during the second encounter of IGT.
Figure 4 Mean number of cards selected in blocks during stage 2. The learning curve in stage 2 also replicated the findings from stage 1, with decks A and C exhibiting lower preference than decks B and D. Unexpectedly, participants preferred the high-frequency gain-decks (B, D) to the other two decks (A, C) even during the second encounter of IGT.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Participant memory assessments in the modified IGT. Following the two-session games, participants were asked to answer the following question: "Please recall the number of trials you assigned for these decks during all 200 trials of the two-session game". This result of questionnaire almost identified the behavioral choice pattern in figure 1 and 3. The questionnaire data confirmed that participant conscious memory is consistent with their choice pattern.
Figure 5 Participant memory assessments in the modified IGT. Following the two-session games, participants were asked to answer the following question: "Please recall the number of trials you assigned for these decks during all 200 trials of the two-session game". This result of questionnaire almost identified the behavioral choice pattern in figure 1 and 3. The questionnaire data confirmed that participant conscious memory is consistent with their choice pattern.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Participant additional assignment of 200 trials after the two-stage game. This question aims to verify participant final preferences regarding the four decks following the two-session game, and participants were asked to answer the following question: "After playing the two-session game, please assign additional 200 trials to the four decks according to your preference". Also, even when participants performed the IGT twice, they still preferred decks B and D to decks A and C.
Figure 6 Participant additional assignment of 200 trials after the two-stage game. This question aims to verify participant final preferences regarding the four decks following the two-session game, and participants were asked to answer the following question: "After playing the two-session game, please assign additional 200 trials to the four decks according to your preference". Also, even when participants performed the IGT twice, they still preferred decks B and D to decks A and C.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Damasio H Graboeski T Frank R Galaburda A Damasio AR The return of Phineas Gage: Clues about the brain from the skull of a famous patient Science 1994 264 1102 1105 8178168 10.1126/science.8178168 · DOI
  2. Bechara A Damasio AR Damasio H Anderson SW Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex Cognition 1994 50 7 15 8039375 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bechara A Damasio H Tranel D Damasio AR Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy Science 1997 275 1293 1295 9036851 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bechara A Damasio H Tranel D Anderson SW Dissociation Of working memory from decision making within the human prefrontal cortex J Neurosci 1998 18 428 437 9412519 PMC6793407
  5. Bowman CH Evans CEY Turnbull OH Artificial time constraints on the Iowa Gambling Task: The effects on behavioral performance and subjective experience Brain Cogn 2005 57 21 25 15629209 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.015 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Glimcher P Neuroeconomics: the consilience of brain and decision Science 2004 306 447 452 15486291 10.1126/science.1102566 · DOI
  7. Shiv B Loewenstein G Bechara A Damasio H Damasio AR Investment behavior and the negative side of emotion Psychol Sci 2004 16 435 439 15943668
  8. Dunn BD Dalgleish T Lawrence AD The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2006 30 239 271 16197997 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Lin CH Chiu YC Lee PL Hsieh JC Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behav Brain Funct 2007 3 16 17362508 10.1186/1744-9081-3-16 PMC1839101 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Lin CH Chiu YC Lee PL Hsieh JC The preferences of decision-making in IOWA Gambling Task: The testing of frequency effect and long-term outcomes in Somatic Marker Hypothesis Proceedings of 2nd Conference of NeuroEconomics: 2004; Münster, Germany 2004
  11. Chiu YC Lin CH Huang JT Lin S Lee PL Hsieh JC Immediate gain is long-term loss: Are there foresighted decision makers in Iowa gambling task? Proceedings of Society for Neuroeconomics 3rd Annual Meeting: September 15–18 2005; Kiawah Island, South Carolina, USA 2005
  12. Bechara A Tranel D Damasio H Damasio AR Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions Brain 2000 123 2189 2202 11050020 10.1093/brain/123.11.2189 · DOI
  13. Wilder KE Weinberger DR Goldberg TE Operant conditioning and the orbitofrontal cortex in schizophrenic patients: unexpected evidence for intact functioning Schizophr Res 1998 30 169 174 9549781 10.1016/S0920-9964(97)00135-7 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Ritter LM Meador-Woodruff JH Dalack GW Neurocognitive measures of prefrontal cortical dysfunction in schizophrenia Schizophr Res 2004 68 65 73 15037340 10.1016/S0920-9964(03)00086-0 · DOI
  15. O'Carroll RE Papps BP Decision making in humans: the effect of manipulating the central noradrenergic system J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003 74 376 378 12588933 10.1136/jnnp.74.3.376 PMC1738336 · DOI
  16. Overman WH Frassrand K Ansel S Trawalter S Bies B Redmond A Performance on the IOWA card task by adolescents and adults Neuropsychologia 2004 42 1838 1851 15351632 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.03.014 · DOI
  17. Bark R Dieckmann S Bogerts B Northoff G Deficit in decision making in catatonic schizophrenia: an exploratory study Psychiatry Res 2005 134 131 141 15840414 10.1016/j.psychres.2004.04.013 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Rodriguez-Sanchez JM Crespo-Facorro B Perez-Iglesias R Gonzalez-Blanch C Alvarez-Jimenez M Llorca J Vazquez-Barquero JL Prefrontal cognitive functions in stabilized first-episode patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a dissociation between dorsolateral and orbitofrontal functioning Schizophr Res 2005 77 279 288 15950437 10.1016/j.schres.2005.04.023 · DOI
  19. Fernie G Tunney RJ Some decks are better than others: the effect of reinforcer type and task instructions on learning in the Iowa Gambling Task Brain Cogn 2006 60 94 102 16271818 10.1016/j.bandc.2005.09.011 · DOI
  20. Caroselli JS Hiscock M Scheibel RS Ingram F The simulated gambling paradigm applied to young adults: an examination of university students' performance Appl Neuropsychol 2006 13 203 212 17362140 10.1207/s15324826an1304_1 · DOI
  21. Crone EA Somsen RJM van Beek B van Der Molen MW Heart rate and skin conductance analysis of antecendents and consequences of decision making Psychophysiology 2004 41 531 540 15189476 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00197.x · DOI
  22. Martino DJ Bucay D Butman JT Allegri RF Neuropsychological frontal impairments and negative symptoms in schizophrenia Psychiatry Res 2007 17507100
  23. Overman W Graham L Redmond A Eubank R Boettcher L Samplawski O Walsh K Contemplation of moral dilemmas eliminates sex differences on the Iowa gambling task Behav Neurosci 2006 120 817 825 16893287 10.1037/0735-7044.120.4.817 · DOI
  24. Maia TV McClelland JL A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: what participants really know in the Iowa gambling task Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004 101 16075 16080 15501919 10.1073/pnas.0406666101 PMC528759 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Lichtenstein S Slovic P Zink DJ Effect of instruction in expected value on optimality of gambling decisions J Exp Psychol Gen 1969 79 236 240 10.1037/h0026888 · DOI
  26. Hastie R Dawes RM Rational Decision in an uncertainty world: The psychology of judgment and decision making 2001 London: Sage Publications
  27. Berridge K Brocas I, Carrillo J Irrational Pursuits: Hyper-Incentives from a Visceral Brain The psychology of economics decisions: Rationality and Well-Being 2003 1 New York: Oxford University Press 17 40
  28. Baumeister R Brocas I, Carrillo J The psychology of irrationality: Why people make foolish, self-defeating choices The psychology of economics decisions: Rationality and Well-Being 2003 I New York: Oxford University Press
  29. Rolls ET Emotion Explained 2005 New York: Oxford University Press
  30. Herrnstein RJ Formal properties of the matching law J Exp Anal Behav 1974 21 159 164 16811728 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-159 PMC1333179 · DOI
  31. Heims HC Critchley HD Dolan R Mathias CJ Cipolotti L Social and motivational functioning is not critically dependent on feedback of autonomic responses: neuropsychological evidence from patients with pure autonomic failure Neuropsychologia 2004 42 1979 1988 15381028 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.06.001 · DOI
  32. Leland J Grafman J Experimental tests of Somatic Marker hypothesis Games Econ Behav 2005 52 386 409 10.1016/j.geb.2004.09.001 · DOI
  33. Suzuki A Hirota A Takasawa N Shigemasu K Application of the somatic marker hypothesis to individual differences in decision making Biol Psychol 2003 65 81 88 14638290 10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00093-0 · DOI
  34. Tomb I Hauser M Deldin P Caramazza A Do somatic markers mediate decisions on the gambling task? Nature Neuroscience 2002 5 1103 1104 12403997 10.1038/nn1102-1103 · DOI
  35. North NT O'Carroll RE Decision making in patients with spinal cord damage: afferent feedback and the somatic marker hypothesis Neuropsychologia 2001 39 521 524 11254934 10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00107-X · DOI
  36. Lin CH Chiu YC Cheng CM Hsieh JC What is the real function of medial frontal cortex under a complete uncertainty? An fMRI study of the Iowa Gambling Task Proceedings of Society for Neuroeconomics 4rd Annual Meeting: September 7–10 2006; Park City, Utah, USA 2006
  37. Lin CH Chiu YC Lin YK Hsieh JC Event-related skin conductance in response to immediate monetary gain-loss in the Soochow Gambling Task Proceedings of Society for Neuroeconomics 4rd Annual Meeting: September 7–10 2006; Park City, Utah, USA 2006
  38. Lin CH Chiu YC Wu CH Lee PL Hsieh JC Medial prefrontal activities represent immediate monetary outcomes in the Soochow Gambling Task: A Near-infrared Ray combined EEG study Proceedings of Society for Neuroeconomics 4rd Annual Meeting: September 7–10 2006; Park City, Utah, USA 2006
  39. Rodriguez-Sanchez JM Crespo-Facorro B Perez-Iglesias R Gonzalez-Blanch C Alvarez-Jimenez M Llorca J Vazquez-Barquero JL Prefrontal cognitive functions in stabilized first-episode patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a dissociation between dorsolateral and orbitofrontal functioning Schizophr Res 2005 77 279 288 15950437 15950437 10.1016/j.schres.2005.04.023 · DOI
  40. MacPherson SE Phillips LH Della Sala S Age, executive function, and social decision making: a dorsolateral prefrontal theory of cognitive aging Psychol Aging 2002 17 598 609 12507357 10.1037/0882-7974.17.4.598 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chiu, Y.-C., & Lin, C.-H.
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Functions
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2007
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
37
ISSN
1744-9081
DOI
10.1186/1744-9081-3-37
PMC
PMC1995208
Cited by
41
References
7

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