Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36291269›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2022

Executive Functions in Decision Making under Ambiguity and Risk in Healthy Adults: A Scoping Review Adopting the Hot and Cold Executive Functions Perspective.

Laura Colautti, Alessandro Antonietti, Paola Iannello

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

3 authors.

Laura ColauttiDepartment of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 20123 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7803-3721
Alessandro AntoniettiDepartment of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 20123 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7212-8076
Paola IannelloDepartment of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 20123 Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

cognitiondecision makingexecutive functionsGame of Dice Taskhealthy adultsIowa Gambling Task

Identifiers

PMID36291269
PMCPMC9599766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.