Iowa Gambling Task (IGT): twenty years after – gambling disorder and IGT

Abstract

The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) involves probabilistic learning via monetary rewards and punishments, where advantageous task performance requires subjects to forego potential large immediate rewards for small longer-term rewards to avoid larger losses. Pathological gamblers (PG) perform worse on the IGT compared to controls, relating to their persistent preference toward high, immediate, and uncertain rewards despite experiencing larger losses. In this contribution, we review studies that investigated processes associated with poor IGT performance in PG. Findings from these studies seem to fit with recent neurocognitive models of addiction, which argue that the diminished ability of addicted individuals to ponder short-term against long-term consequences of a choice may be the product of an hyperactive automatic attentional and memory system for signaling the presence of addiction-related cues (e.g., high uncertain rewards associated with disadvantageous decks selection during the IGT) and for attributing to such cues pleasure and excitement. This incentive-salience associated with gambling-related choice in PG may be so high that it could literally “hijack” resources [“hot” executive functions (EFs)] involved in emotional self-regulation and necessary to allow the enactment of further elaborate decontextualized problem-solving abilities (“cool” EFs). A framework for future research is also proposed, which highlights the need for studies examining how these processes contribute specifically to the aberrant choice profile displayed by PG on the IGT.

Predicament Of Classification: Multisystem Small Vessel Vasculitis With Cresentic Glomerulonephritis

“…Over all, inability to delay gratification can lead to less financial planning and compulsive buying which will negatively affect the individual's ability to handle personal and family responsibilities [20]. Furthermore, various studies also show the role of impulsivity in Pathological gambling [21] and substance use [22]. American Psychiatric Association defined pathological gambling as a persistent and frequent maladjusted gambling characterized by failure to control gambling that make an individual not to handle personal, social, and vocational responsibilities [21].…”

“…Furthermore, various studies also show the role of impulsivity in Pathological gambling [21] and substance use [22]. American Psychiatric Association defined pathological gambling as a persistent and frequent maladjusted gambling characterized by failure to control gambling that make an individual not to handle personal, social, and vocational responsibilities [21]. However, it is not still clear which is the cause and which is the effect [23].…”

The benefits of using the UPPS model of impulsivity rather than the Big Five when assessing the relationship between personality and problem gambling

“…These two UPPS components rely upon distinct underlying mechanisms [10], which are not linked identically to PG [11]. In fact, the lack of premeditation has been associated with poor decision-making abilities, which is an established hallmark of PG [12,13], whereas the lack of perseverance has been linked rather to attentional processes that are not necessary altered in PG. Accordingly, it is not surprising that low premeditation (but not low perseverance) is elevated in PG.…”

Computational EEG modelling of decision making under ambiguity reveals spatio-temporal dynamics of outcome evaluation

“…Tasks like the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) are a popular measure of decision making under ambiguity (e.g., Brevers et al 2013;Xiao et al 2013;Halfmann et al 2014). Advantageous performance on the IGT is based on approximations of long-term consequences rather than exact calculations (Christakou et al 2009), and choice behavior typically shifts across trials as participants learn to make more advantageous selections with increasing knowledge of the outcome contingencies (Gansler et al 2011).…”