Bechara Iowa Gambling Task

The somatic marker hypothesis and the Iowa Gambling Task The somatic marker hypothesis (SMH) was developed to address the problems of decision-making encountered in patients with certain kinds of prefrontal damage and with compromised emotions. ‘Somatic markers (SM) are a special instance offeelings gener- ated from secondary emotions. Start studying Iowa Gambling Task (Bechara et al.). Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Key Study: Decision Making, Iowa Gambling and the vmPFC (Bechara et al., 2000). Travis Dixon June 16, 2017 Biological Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Criminology 6 Comments The Iowa Gambling Task is a common test used in experiments on decision making.

[edit]About

In this test, subject chooses from one of four decks, each having a different reward schedule. This task is based on Bechara et al's so-called 'Iowa Gambling task'

In this procedure, subjects are given $2000 to begin. On each trial, they are given the choice of four decks,and after each card, they are given a reward of some amount; after some cards, they are givena reward and pay a penalty.

[edit]Notes

The penalty/reward structure is identical to that in Bechara et al.with 40 cards per deck, and the identical reward structure.When 100 cards have been selected, the task is complete.

Unlike the real-world version, the deck is just rotated on each draw, so that the top card moves to the bottom of the 40-card deck,and so the sequence will repeat after 40 cards in the original order, rather than becoming exhausted after 40 draws.

[edit]Options

• By default, the penalty cards are in the order originally published by Bechara et al. Setting shuffleDecks <- 1 (from 0) will shuffle the penalty decks

before the experiment. Shuffling is performed in 10-card epochs, so that the penalty in 1-10 stay in 1-10, etc.

• Baseline rewards for each deck can be changed as well, using the deck1Rew, deck2Rew, deck3Rew, and deck4Rew variables.
• The variable gUseMouse controls whether interaction is done using the mouse or keyboard input. Set to 0 for keyboard, 1 for mouse. It is 1 by default.
• The variable numtrials controls how many trials are used. Cards in decks get rotated from top to bottom, so there is no great danger of running out of cards.

[edit]Data Output

Data are saved to igt-X.txt, where X is the participant code. The columns are:

Each row is a trial. You are probably most interested in the proportion that each deck is chosen, which is the third column.

[edit]References

Bechara A, Damasio A. R., Damasio H, & Anderson S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition.

[edit]Research Using Test

• Kaare, P. R. (2008). Correlates of pathological gambling in Estonia: Personality, emotional states, self-esteem, cognitive ability and decision-making strategies. University of Tartu Master Thesis.
• Kaare, P. R., Mõttus, R., & Konstabel, K. (2009). Pathological Gambling in Estonia: Relationships with Personality, Self-Esteem, Emotional States and Cognitive Ability. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(3), 377-390.
• Lipnicki, D. M., Gunga, H. C., Belavy, D. L., & Felsenberg, D. (2009). Bed Rest and Cognition: Effects on Executive Functioning and Reaction Time. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine, 80(12), 1018-1024. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20027848
• Lipnicki, D. M., Gunga, H., Belavy, D. L., & Felsenberg, D. (2009). Decision making after 50 days of simulated weightlessness. Brain Research, 1280, 84-89. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.022 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19447099

Iowa Gambling Task Bechara

[edit]See Also

Bechara 1994 Iowa Gambling Task

Bechara’s Gambling Task is more popularly known as Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) which was studied by Antoine Bechara, Antonio Damasio, Hanna Damasio, and Steven Anderson, researchers from the University of Iowa. In this psychological task, the participants’ decision-making skills were observed as they played a virtual card game. Four decks were presented and each one had cards that could give rewards or penalties through game money. Some decks were “good” in the sense that they tend to give more rewards and some were “bad” since they held more penalizing cards. The findings showed that most participants become fairly good at consistently choosing “good decks” after 40 to 50 selections. However, the participants with orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) dysfunction still continued to select the bad decks. Also, unlike their healthy counterparts, the patients with OFC did not show stress reactions in response to losing a lot of game money caused by choosing the bad decks.