ArticleFrontiers in psychology2016
Sex-Differences, Handedness, and Lateralization in the Iowa Gambling Task.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Iowa Gambling Task: Men and Women Perform Differently. A Meta-analysis.Neuropsychology review · 2025Pooled it
- Sex-differences in resting state dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: comparing motion correction methods in resting state functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS).Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- Do Human Reinforcement Learning Models Account for Key Experimental Choice Patterns in the Iowa Gambling Task?Computational brain & behavior · 2025Article
- Bittersweet memories and somatic marker hypothesis: adaptive control in emotional recall facilitates long-term decision-making in the Iowa Gambling Task.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Is there a Neurobiological Rationale for the Utility of the Iowa Gambling Task in Parkinson's Disease?Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2021Review
- Functional Cerebral Specialization and Decision Making in the Iowa Gambling Task: A Single-Case Study of Left-Hemispheric Atrophy and Hemispherotomy.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Neural Responses to Reward in a Gambling Task: Sex Differences and Individual Variation in Reward-Driven Impulsivity.Cerebral cortex communications · 2020Article
- Country and Sex Differences in Decision Making Under Uncertainty and Risk.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Long-term deficits in risky decision-making after traumatic brain injury on a rat analog of the Iowa gambling task.Brain research · 2019Article
- Let's call the whole thing off: evaluating gender and sex differences in executive function.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a widely used decision-making task, the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), male performance is observed to be superior to that of females, and is attributed to right lateralization (i.e., right hemispheric dominance). It is as yet unknown whether sex-differences in affect and motor lateralization have implications for sex-specific lateralization in the IGT, and specifically, whether sex-difference in performance in the IGT changes with right-handedness or with affect lateralization (decision valence, and valence-directed motivation). The present study (N = 320; 160 males) examined the effects of right-handedness (right-handedness vs. non-right-handedness) as a measure of motor lateralization, decision valence (reward vs. punishment IGT), and valence-directedness of task motivation (valence-directed vs. non-directed instructions), as measures of affective lateralization on IGT decision making. Analyses of variance revealed that both male and female participants showed valence-induced inconsistencies in advantageous decision-making; however, right-handed females made more disadvantageous decisions in a reward IGT. These results suggest that IGT decision-making may be largely right-lateralized in right-handed males, and show that sex and lateralized differences (motor and affect) have implications for sex-differences in IGT decision-making. Implications of the results are discussed with reference to lateralization and sex-differences in cognition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.