Display options
Cite
Dai J, Kerestes R, Upton DJ, et al. An improved cognitive model of the Iowa and Soochow Gambling Tasks with regard to model fitting performance and tests of parameter consistency. Front Psychol. 2015;6:229doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00229.
Dai, J., Kerestes, R., Upton, D. J., Busemeyer, J. R., & Stout, J. C. (2015). An improved cognitive model of the Iowa and Soochow Gambling Tasks with regard to model fitting performance and tests of parameter consistency. Frontiers in psychology, 6229. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00229
Dai, Junyi, et al. "An improved cognitive model of the Iowa and Soochow Gambling Tasks with regard to model fitting performance and tests of parameter consistency." Frontiers in psychology vol. 6 (2015): 229. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00229
Dai J, Kerestes R, Upton DJ, Busemeyer JR, Stout JC. An improved cognitive model of the Iowa and Soochow Gambling Tasks with regard to model fitting performance and tests of parameter consistency. Front Psychol. 2015 Mar 12;6:229. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00229. eCollection 2015. PMID: 25814963; PMCID: PMC4357250.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2015 Mar 12;6:229. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00229. eCollection 2015.

An improved cognitive model of the Iowa and Soochow Gambling Tasks with regard to model fitting performance and tests of parameter consistency.

Frontiers in psychology

Junyi Dai, Rebecca Kerestes, Daniel J Upton, Jerome R Busemeyer, Julie C Stout

Affiliations

  1. Decision Research Laboratory, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University , Bloomington, IN, USA ; Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development Berlin, Germany.
  2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
  3. Department of Psychological Sciences, Monash University Clayton, VIC, Australia.
  4. Decision Research Laboratory, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University , Bloomington, IN, USA.

PMID: 25814963 PMCID: PMC4357250 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00229

Abstract

The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the Soochow Gambling Task (SGT) are two experience-based risky decision-making tasks for examining decision-making deficits in clinical populations. Several cognitive models, including the expectancy-valence learning (EVL) model and the prospect valence learning (PVL) model, have been developed to disentangle the motivational, cognitive, and response processes underlying the explicit choices in these tasks. The purpose of the current study was to develop an improved model that can fit empirical data better than the EVL and PVL models and, in addition, produce more consistent parameter estimates across the IGT and SGT. Twenty-six opiate users (mean age 34.23; SD 8.79) and 27 control participants (mean age 35; SD 10.44) completed both tasks. Eighteen cognitive models varying in evaluation, updating, and choice rules were fit to individual data and their performances were compared to that of a statistical baseline model to find a best fitting model. The results showed that the model combining the prospect utility function treating gains and losses separately, the decay-reinforcement updating rule, and the trial-independent choice rule performed the best in both tasks. Furthermore, the winning model produced more consistent individual parameter estimates across the two tasks than any of the other models.

Keywords: Iowa Gambling Task; Soochow Gambling Task; cognitive modeling; opiate users; parameter consistency

References

  1. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2006 May;14(2):254-64 - PubMed
  2. Behav Brain Funct. 2005 Jun 27;1(1):8 - PubMed
  3. Neuropsychologia. 2001;39(4):376-89 - PubMed
  4. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2007 Feb;29(2):155-9 - PubMed
  5. Psychol Assess. 2002 Sep;14(3):253-62 - PubMed
  6. Neuroimage. 2003 Jul;19(3):1085-94 - PubMed
  7. Front Psychol. 2013 Sep 30;4:640 - PubMed
  8. Behav Brain Funct. 2007 Mar 15;3:16 - PubMed
  9. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Aug;11(4):742-7 - PubMed
  10. Cereb Cortex. 1996 Mar-Apr;6(2):215-25 - PubMed
  11. J Math Psychol. 2010 Feb 1;54(1):28-38 - PubMed
  12. Addict Behav. 2007 Dec;32(12):3071-6 - PubMed
  13. Cognition. 1994 Apr-Jun;50(1-3):7-15 - PubMed
  14. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30(2):239-71 - PubMed
  15. Front Neurosci. 2012 Mar 14;6:34 - PubMed
  16. Cogn Sci. 2008 Dec;32(8):1376-402 - PubMed
  17. Psychol Sci. 2005 Dec;16(12):973-8 - PubMed
  18. Front Neurosci. 2012 Jan 06;5:145 - PubMed
  19. Neuropsychology. 2004 Jan;18(1):152-62 - PubMed
  20. Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(8):1180-7 - PubMed
  21. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2001 Jan;7(1):92-101 - PubMed
  22. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Apr;20(2):364-71 - PubMed
  23. Behav Brain Funct. 2008 Mar 19;4:13 - PubMed
  24. Psychol Assess. 2013 Mar;25(1):180-93 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support