Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22013406›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2011

Rodent versions of the iowa gambling task: opportunities and challenges for the understanding of decision-making.

Leonie de Visser, Judith R Homberg, Manuela Mitsogiannis, Fiona D Zeeb, Marion Rivalan, Aurélie Fitoussi, Vasco Galhardo, Ruud van den Bos, Catherine A Winstanley, Françoise Dellu-Hagedorn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. GABANeuropharmacology · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leonie de VisserDepartment of Neuroscience and Pharmacology, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Netherlands.
Judith R Homberg
Manuela Mitsogiannis
Fiona D Zeeb
Marion Rivalan
Aurélie Fitoussi
Vasco Galhardo
Ruud van den Bos
Catherine A Winstanley
Françoise Dellu-Hagedorn
University Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Impaired decision-making is a core problem in several psychiatric disorders including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, mania, drug addiction, eating disorders, and substance abuse as well as in chronic pain. To ensure progress in the understanding of the neuropathophysiology of these disorders, animal models with good construct and predictive validity are indispensable. Many human studies aimed at measuring decision-making capacities use the Iowa gambling task (IGT), a task designed to model everyday life choices through a conflict between immediate gratification and long-term outcomes. Recently, new rodent models based on the same principle have been developed to investigate the neurobiological mechanisms underlying IGT-like decision-making on behavioral, neural, and pharmacological levels. The comparative strengths, as well as the similarities and differences between these paradigms are discussed. The contribution of these models to elucidate the neurobehavioral factors that lead to poor decision-making and to the development of better treatments for psychiatric illness is considered, along with important future directions and potential limitations.

Indexed as

animal modeldopamineIowa gambling taskneurobiologyserotoninvalidity

Identifiers

PMID22013406
PMCPMC3189637
OpenAlexW2103507497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.