Iowa Gambling Task with non-clinical participants: effects of using real + virtual cards and additional trials

Abstract

Performance on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) in clinical populations can be interpreted only in relation to established baseline performance in normal populations. As in all comparisons of assessment tools, the normal baseline must reflect performance under conditions in which subjects can function at their best levels. In this review, we show that a number of variables enhance IGT performance in non-clinical participants. First, optimal performance is produced by having participants turn over real cards while viewing virtual cards on a computer screen. The use of only virtual cards results in significantly lower performance than the combination of real + virtual cards. Secondly, administration of more than 100 trials also enhances performance. When using the real/virtual card procedure, performance is shown to significantly increase from early adolescence through young adulthood. Under these conditions young (mean age 19 years) and older (mean age 59 years) adults perform equally. Females, as a group, score lower than males because females tend to choose cards from high-frequency-of-gain Deck B. Groups of females with high or low gonadal hormones perform equally. Concurrent tasks, e.g., presentation of aromas, decrease performance in males. Age and gender effects are discussed in terms of a dynamic between testosterone and orbital prefrontal cortex.

Entrepreneurs’ Exploratory Perseverance in Learning Settings

“…A direct comparison of deck choices between our study and other studies is complicated by substantial variation across samples and study designs, all of which affect IGT outcomes (Overman & Pierce, 2013). Despite this, the frequencies of selections from the 'good' decks, C and D, in our study are in line with several previous studies.…”

What have we learned about the processes involved in the Iowa Gambling Task from developmental studies?

“…Nevertheless, adolescents' performance is still suboptimal compared to adults, suggesting that the ability to distinguish between advantageous and disadvantageous options continues to improve during late adolescence (Overman, 2004; Overman and Pierce, 2013). Although some authors point out that there may be differences between the development of decision making involving personal gain or loss and decision making that leads to help another such as in the HDT, developmental studies using the standard IGT have confirmed that advantageous decision making progressively increases until early adulthood (Hooper et al, 2004; Cassotti et al, 2011; Beitz et al, 2014).…”

To Fear Is to Gain? The Role of Fear Recognition in Risky Decision Making in TBI Patients and Healthy Controls

“…This suggests that TBI patients do show some learning in the IGT, but have a delayed learning rate compared to healthy controls. Studies in healthy subjects showed that learning on the IGT is not completed after 100 trials and performance on the IGT can be enhanced with the addition of extra trials [74,75]. If this is the case for healthy controls, probably TBI patients would also benefit from more trials in the IGT.…”