CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dissociable processes underlying decisions in the Iowa Gambling Task: a new integrative framework

Stocco, Andrea, Fum, Danilo, Napoli, Antonio·2009·Behavioral and Brain Functions
DOI 10.1186/1744-9081-5-1PMC PMC2645419
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 · 10.1186/1744-9081-5-1

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The P index across the two phases. Time course of the P index (tracking the preference for decks with high payoff) for the four groups during the experiment. Left: values of P during the five blocks of the first phase, grouped by Condition in the first and in the second phase. Right: A comparison of P at the end of the first phase and during the second phase, where no feedback was allowed. Points represent mean values ± SEM.
Figure 1 The P index across the two phases. Time course of the P index (tracking the preference for decks with high payoff) for the four groups during the experiment. Left: values of P during the five blocks of the first phase, grouped by Condition in the first and in the second phase. Right: A comparison of P at the end of the first phase and during the second phase, where no feedback was allowed. Points represent mean values ± SEM.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 The Q index across the two phases. Time course of the Q index (tracking the preference for decks with low frequency of losses) for the four groups during the experiment. Left: values of Q during the five blocks of the first phase. Right: A comparison of Q at the end of the first phase and during the second phase, where no feedback was allowed. Points represent mean values ± SEM.
Figure 2 The Q index across the two phases. Time course of the Q index (tracking the preference for decks with low frequency of losses) for the four groups during the experiment. Left: values of Q during the five blocks of the first phase. Right: A comparison of Q at the end of the first phase and during the second phase, where no feedback was allowed. Points represent mean values ± SEM.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Dissociation between P and Q. Left: Effects of Condition in the first phase and presence of a loss in the previous selection on P. Only the Condition has a significant effect on P. Right: Effects of Condition in the first phase and Presence of a Loss in the previous selection on Q. This time, only the Loss in the previous phase has a significant effect. Points represent mean values ± SEM.
Figure 3 Dissociation between P and Q. Left: Effects of Condition in the first phase and presence of a loss in the previous selection on P. Only the Condition has a significant effect on P. Right: Effects of Condition in the first phase and Presence of a Loss in the previous selection on Q. This time, only the Loss in the previous phase has a significant effect. Points represent mean values ± SEM.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 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. Bowman CH Turnbull OH Emotion-based learning on a simplified card game: the Iowa and Bangor Gambling Tasks Brain Cogn 2004 55 277 282 15177795 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.02.009 · DOI
  2. Shiv B Loewenstein G Bechara A Damasio H Damasio AR Investment behavior and the negative side of emotion Psychol Sci 2005 16 435 439 15943668
  3. Brand M Labudda K Kalbe E Hilker R Emmans D Fuchs G Kessler J Markowitsch HJ Decision-making impairments in patients with Parkinson's disease Behav Neurol 2004 15 77 85 15706051 PMC5488616
  4. Camille N Coricelli G Sallet J Pradat-Diehl P Duhamel JR Sirigu A The involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex in the experience of regret Science 2004 304 1167 1170 15155951 10.1126/science.1094550 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Coricelli G Critchley HD Joffily M O'Doherty JP Sirigu A Dolan RJ Regret and its avoidance: a neuroimaging study of choice behavior Nat Neurosci 2005 8 1255 1262 16116457 10.1038/nn1514 · DOI
  6. Preuschoff K Bossaerts P Quartz SR Neural differentiation of expected reward and risk in human subcortical structures Neuron 2006 51 381 390 16880132 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.06.024 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Fukui H Murai T Fukuyama H Hayashi T Hanakawa T Functional activity related to risk anticipation during performance of the Iowa Gambling Task NeuroImage 2005 24 253 259 15588617 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.08.028 · DOI
  8. Tobler PN O'Doherty JP Dolan RJ Schultz W Reward value coding distinct from risk attitude-related uncertainty coding in human reward systems J Neurophysiol 2007 97 1621 1632 17122317 10.1152/jn.00745.2006 PMC2637604 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Tom SM Fox CR Trepel C Poldrack RA The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk Science 2007 315 515 518 17255512 10.1126/science.1134239 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 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
  11. Bechara A Tranel D Damasio H 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
  12. Manes F Sahakian B Clark L Rogers R Antoun N Aitken M Robbins T Decision-making processes following damage to the prefrontal cortex Brain 2002 125 624 639 11872618 10.1093/brain/awf049 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Fellows LK Farah MJ Different underlying impairments in decision-making following ventromedial and dorsolateral frontal lobe damage in humans Cereb Cortex 2005 15 58 63 15217900 10.1093/cercor/bhh108 · DOI
  14. Stout JC Rodawalt WC Siemers ER Risky decision making in Huntington's disease J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2001 7 92 101 11253845 10.1017/S1355617701711095 · DOI
  15. Campbell MC Stout JC Finn PR Reduced autonomic responsiveness to gambling task losses in Huntington's disease J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2004 10 239 245 15012844 10.1017/S1355617704102105 · DOI
  16. Evans CE Bowman CH Turnbull OH Subjective awareness on the Iowa Gambling Task: The key role of emotional experience in schizophrenia J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2005 27 656 664 16019642 10.1081/13803390490918354 · DOI
  17. Turnbull OH Evans CE Kemish K Park S Bowman CH A novel set-shifting modification of the iowa gambling task: Flexible emotion-based learning in schizophrenia Neuropsychology 2006 20 290 298 16719622 10.1037/0894-4105.20.3.290 · DOI
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Stout JC Busemeyer JR Lin A Grant SJ Bonson KR Cognitive modeling analysis of decision-making processes in cocaine abusers Psychon Bull Rev 2004 11 742 747 15581127
  21. Haaland VO Landrø NI Decision making as measured with the Iowa Gambling Task in patients with borderline personality disorder J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2007 13 699 703 17521489 10.1017/S1355617707070890 · DOI
  22. Must A Szabo Z Bodi N Szasz A Janka Z Keri S Sensitivity to reward and punishment and the prefrontal cortex in major depression J Affect Disord 2006 90 209 215 16412520 10.1016/j.jad.2005.12.005 · DOI
  23. Bechara A Dolan S Denburg N Hindes A Anderson SW Nathan PE Decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers Neuropsychologia 2001 39 376 389 11164876 10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00136-6 · DOI
  24. Bechara A Damasio H Decision-making and addiction (part I): impaired activation of somatic states in substance dependent individuals when pondering decisions with negative future consequences Neuropsychologia 2002 40 1675 1689 11992656 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00015-5 · DOI
  25. Verdejo A Aguilar de Arcos F Perez Garcia M Alterations in the decision making processes linked to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in drug-abusing patients Rev Neurol 2004 38 601 606 15098178
  26. 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
  27. Bechara A Damasio H Damasio AR Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex Cereb Cortex 2000 10 295 307 10731224 10.1093/cercor/10.3.295 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Fellows LK Farah MJ Ventromedial frontal cortex mediates affective shifting in humans: Evidence from a reversal learning paradigm Brain 2003 126 1830 1837 12821528 10.1093/brain/awg180 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Wheeler EZ Fellows LK The human ventromedial frontal lobe is critical for learning from negative feedback Brain 2008 131 1323 1331 18344561 10.1093/brain/awn041 · DOI
  30. Bechara A Tranel D Damasio H Damasio AR Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to prefrontal cortex Cereb Cortex 1996 6 215 225 8670652 10.1093/cercor/6.2.215 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 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 USA 2004 101 16075 16080 15501919 10.1073/pnas.0406666101 PMC528759 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Bowman CH Evans CE Turnbull OH Artificial time constraints on the Iowa Gambling Task: The effects on behavioural performance and subjective experience Brain Cogn 2005 57 21 25 15629209 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.015 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Stocco A Fum D Implicit emotional biases in decision making: the case of the Iowa Gambling Task Brain Cogn 2008 66 253 259 17950966 10.1016/j.bandc.2007.09.002 · DOI
  34. 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
  35. Bechara A Martin EM Impaired decision making related to working memory deficits in individuals with substance addictions Neuropsychology 2004 18 152 162 14744198 10.1037/0894-4105.18.1.152 · DOI
  36. Turnbull OH Evans CE Bunce A Carzolio B O'Connor J Emotion-based learning and central executive resources: An investigation of intuition and the Iowa Gambling Task Brain Cogn 2005 57 244 247 15780457 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.053 · DOI
  37. Hinson JM Jameson TL Whitney P Somatic markers, working memory, and decision making Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 2002 2 341 353 12641178 10.3758/CABN.2.4.341 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Jameson TL Hinson JM Whitney P Components of working memory and somatic markers in decision making Psychon Bull Rev 2004 11 515 520 15376804
  39. Pecchinenda A Dretsch M Chapman P Working memory involvement in emotion-based processes underlying choosing advantageously Exp Psychol 2006 53 191 197 16955728
  40. Dretsch MN Tipples J Working memory involved in predicting future outcomes based on past experiences Brain Cogn 2008 66 83 90 17628270 10.1016/j.bandc.2007.05.006 · DOI
  41. Cella M Dymond S Cooper A Turnbull O Effects of decision-phase time constraints on emotion-based learning in the Iowa Gambling Task Brain Cogn 2007 64 164 169 17368682 10.1016/j.bandc.2007.02.003 · DOI
  42. Johnson CA Xiao L Palmer P Sun P Wang Q Wei Y Jia Y Grenard JL Stacy AW Bechara A Affective decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in 10th grade Chinese adolescent binge drinkers Neuropsychologia 2008 46 714 726 17996909 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.09.012 PMC3498846 · DOI
  43. Sevy S Burdick KE Visweswaraiah H Abdelmessih S Lukin M Yechiam E Bechara A Iowa gambling task in schizophrenia: A review and new data in patients with schizophrenia and co-occurring cannabis use disorders Schizophr Res 2007 92 74 84 17379482 10.1016/j.schres.2007.01.005 PMC2039912 · DOI
  44. Fum D Napoli A Stocco A Sloutsky V, Love B, McRae K Somatic markers and frequency effects: Does emotion really play a role on decision making in the gambling task? 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society; Washington, DC 2008 Lawrence Erlbaum 1203 1208
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. Thaler RH Toward a positive theory of consumer choice J Econ Behav Organ 1980 1 39 60 10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7 · DOI
  48. Novemsky N Kahneman D The boundaries of loss aversion J Market Res 2005 42 119 128 10.1509/jmkr.42.2.119.62292 · DOI
  49. Kim S Hwang J Lee D Prefrontal coding of temporally discounted values during intertemporal choice Neuron 2008 59 161 172 18614037 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.05.010 PMC2593737 · DOI
  50. Sutton RS Barto AG Reinforcement learning: An introduction 1998 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  51. Schultz W Getting formal with dopamine and reward Neuron 2002 36 241 263 12383780 10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00967-4 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Busemeyer JR Stout JC A contribution of cognitive decision models to clinical assessment: Decomposing performance on the Bechara gambling task Psychol Assess 2002 14 253 262 12214432 10.1037/1040-3590.14.3.253 · DOI
  53. Wood S Cox CR Davis H Busemeyer JR Koling A Older adults as adaptive decision makers: Evidence from the Iowa gambling task Psychol Aging 2005 20 220 225 16029086 10.1037/0882-7974.20.2.220 · DOI
  54. Evans CE Kemish K Turnbull OH Paradoxical effects of education on the Iowa Gambling Task Brain Cogn 2004 54 240 244 15050783 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.02.022 · DOI
  55. Fellows LK The role of orbitofrontal cortex in decision making: A component process account Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007 1121 421 430 17846161 10.1196/annals.1401.023 · DOI
  56. Markowitz H Portfolio Selection J Finance 1952 7 77 91 10.2307/2975974 · DOI
  57. Tomb I Hauser M Deldin P Caramazza A Do somatic markers mediate decisions on the gambling task? Nat Neurosci 2002 5 1103 1104 12403997 10.1038/nn1102-1103 · DOI
  58. Lyubomirsky S Nolen-Hoeksema S Effects of self-focused rumination on negative thinking and interpersonal problem solving J Pers Soc Psychol 1995 69 176 190 7643299 10.1037/0022-3514.69.1.176 · DOI
  59. Watkins E Brown RG Rumination and executive function in depression: An experimental study J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002 72 400 402 11861707 10.1136/jnnp.72.3.400 PMC1737771 · DOI
  60. Fellows LK Deciding how to decide: Ventromedial frontal lobe damage affects information acquisition in multi-attribute decision making Brain 2006 129 944 952 16455794 10.1093/brain/awl017 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Stocco, A., Fum, D., & Napoli, A.
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Functions
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
1
ISSN
1744-9081
DOI
10.1186/1744-9081-5-1
PMC
PMC2645419
Cited by
46
References
8
Language
en

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