SynthesisNeuropsychology review2025
The Iowa Gambling Task: Men and Women Perform Differently. A Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reward-specific learning parameters change across normative adolescent development and are blunted in youth with high risk for depression.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026Article
- The influence of social cues in learning and decision-making over time.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Influence of habitual physical activity on cognitive performance of healthy young adults after passive heat exposure.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Article
- Reward and punishment learning among people with a lifetime history of anxiety, depression, and substance use disorder.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Women, intuition, and management-the Yin and Yang of nonconscious thought.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Differential susceptibility effects of theFrontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Eye movements during the Iowa Gambling Task in Parkinson's disease: a brief report.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Analysis of the status quo and clinical influencing factors of the social cognitive impairment in deficit schizophrenia.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Iowa Gambling Task performance in individuals with schizophrenia: the role of general versus specific cognitive abilities.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) was designed to assess decision-making under conditions of complexity and uncertainty; it is currently one of the most widely used tests to assess decision-making in both experimental and clinical settings. In the original version of the task, participants are given a loan of play money and four decks of cards and are asked to maximize profits. Although any single card unpredictably yields wins/losses, variations in frequency and size of gains/losses ultimately make two decks more advantageous in the long term. Several studies have previously suggested that there may be a sex-related difference in IGT performance. Thus, the present study aimed to explore and quantify sex differences in IGT performance by pooling the results of 110 studies. The meta-analysis revealed that males tend to perform better than females on the classic 100-trial IGT (UMD = 3.381; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the significant heterogeneity observed suggests high variability in the results obtained by individual studies. Results were not affected by publication bias or other moderators. Factors that may contribute to differences in male and female performance are discussed, such as functional sex-related asymmetries in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and amygdala, as well as differences in sensitivity to wins/losses.
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.