In Parkinson's disease (PD) impairments in decision making can occur, in particular because of the tendency toward risky and rewarding options. The Iowa Gambling Task has been widely used to investigate decision processes involving these options. The task assesses the ability to manage risk and to learn from feedback. The present paper aims at critically examining those studies in which this task has been administered to PD patients, in order to understand possible anomalies in patients' decision processes and which variables are responsible for that. A meta-analysis has been conducted as well. Features of the task, sociodemographic and clinical aspects (including daily drugs intake), cognitive conditions and emotional disorders of the patients have been taken into account.Neural correlates of decision-making competences were considered. It emerged that PD patients show a trend of preference toward risky choices, probably due to an impairment in anticipating the unrewarding consequences or to an insensitiveness to punishment. The possible role played by dopamine medications in decision making under uncertain conditions, affecting basal ganglia and structures involved in the limbic loop, was discussed. Attention has been focused on some aspects that need to be investigated in further research, in order to delve into this issue and promote patients' quality of life.
The COVID-19 vaccine appears to be a crucial requirement to fight the pandemic. However, a part of the population possesses negative attitudes towards the vaccine. The spread of conspiracy theories and contradictory information about the pandemic have altered the population’s perception of risk. The risk-perception of the vaccine’s side effects may be affected by individual differences. The complex relationship between risk-perception and individual differences is relevant when people have to make decisions based on ambiguous and constantly changing information, as in the early phases of the Italian vaccination campaign. The present study aimed at measuring the effect of individual differences in risk-perception associated with the COVID-19 vaccine’s side effects in a context characterized by information ambiguity. An online survey was conducted to classify a sample of Italian pro-vaccine people into cognitive/behavioral style groups. Furthermore, changes in vaccine risk-perception after inconsistent communications regarding the vaccine’s side effects were compared between groups. The results showed that “analytical” individuals did not change their perception regarding the probability of vaccine side effects but changed their perception regarding the severity of side effects; “open” and “polarized” individuals neither changed their perception regarding the probability nor of the severity of side effects, showing a different kind of information processing, which could interfere with an informed decision-making process.
An exploratory study aimed at testing CREC, a training programme designed for people with cognitive impairments caused by a stroke, is reported. The goal of the programme is to improve flexibility in thinking through a creative approach based on everyday problems. The programme includes two Serious Games (SGs) developed ad hoc, dealing with the transfer of the learned strategies to the home environment. The training was applied to six patients to test if it could bring beneficial effects to them. Before and after the training, patients’ neuropsychological functioning, emotional state and level of creativity were assessed. Results showed improvements in memory, logical reasoning and praxic skills. Improvements in quality of life and in creativity emerged as well. At the end of the training, the patients perceived themselves as more efficient in problem solving and recognised that the SGs led them to reflect critically on some aspects of their daily life that they usually took for granted.
Decision making (DM) has a pivotal role in supporting individual autonomy and well-being. It is considered a complex ability exploiting many cognitive functions, among which executive functions (EFs) are crucial. Few studies analyzed the role played by EFs in DM in healthy adults under ambiguity and risk, which are common conditions for most decisions in daily life. This scoping review aims to analyze the relationships between two individual tasks widely used to assess DM under these conditions (Iowa Gambling Task and Game of Dice Task) and EFs. According to the organizing principle that conceptualizes hot and cold EFs, DM under such conditions mainly implies hot EFs, but the relationship with cold EFs is still unclear. Using such an approach, a comprehensive framework is provided, highlighting main findings and identifying possible gaps in the literature. The results suggest different roles played by cold EFs in DM under ambiguity and risk, according to the characteristics of the tasks. The findings can offer guidance to further studies and to design interventions to support DM in healthy adults.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.