ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2022
Exploring decision-making strategies in the Iowa gambling task and rat gambling task.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hot and Cool Executive Functions in Middle Childhood: Evidence for a Weak but Process-Specific Relationship.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Relationship Between Emotional States, Emotion Regulation and Executive Functions in Professional Female Football Players.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Direct and indirect striatal projecting neurons exert strategy-dependent effects on decision-making.Science advances · 2025Article
- Impulsive-compulsive behaviours and striatal neuroactivity in mildly parkinsonian rats under D2/3 agonist and L-DOPA treatment.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
- Differential susceptibility effects of theFrontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Individual differences in training time in the rat gambling task are unrelated to subsequent decision-making strategies.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Cross-species comparison of rodent and human decision-making in the Iowa Gambling Task in select neurological and psychiatric disorders: translational approach to examine age- and sex-specific effects of stress and corticolimbic perturbations.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Editorial: Translational research advancements utilizing the Iowa Gambling Task in preclinical and clinical studies: 30 years of the IGT.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Pramipexole Hyperactivates the External Globus Pallidus and Impairs Decision-Making in a Mouse Model of Parkinson's Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Individual strategies in the rat gambling task are related to voluntary alcohol intake, but not sexual behavior, and can be modulated by naltrexone.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decision-making requires that individuals perceive the probabilities and risks associated with different options. Experimental human and animal laboratory testing provide complimentary insights on the psychobiological underpinnings of decision-making. The Iowa gambling task (IGT) is a widely used instrument that assesses decision-making under uncertainty and risk. In the task participants are faced with a choice conflict between cards with varying monetary reinforcer/loss contingencies. The rat gambling task (rGT) is a pre-clinical version using palatable reinforcers as wins and timeouts mimicking losses. However, interspecies studies elaborating on human and rat behavior in these tasks are lacking. This study explores decision-making strategies among young adults (
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.