The Iowa Gambling Task: Men and Women Perform Differently. A Meta-analysis.

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
Ludovica Zanini, Chiara Picano, Grazia Fernanda Spitoni
{"title":"The Iowa Gambling Task: Men and Women Perform Differently. A Meta-analysis.","authors":"Ludovica Zanini, Chiara Picano, Grazia Fernanda Spitoni","doi":"10.1007/s11065-024-09637-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-024-09637-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

爱荷华州赌博任务:男女表现不同。元分析。
爱荷华赌博任务(IGT)旨在评估复杂性和不确定性条件下的决策;它是目前在实验和临床环境中最广泛使用的决策评估测试之一。在该任务的原始版本中,参与者会得到一笔借来的游戏币和四副扑克牌,并被要求使利润最大化。虽然任何一张牌都会产生不可预测的输赢,但输赢频率和输赢大小的变化最终会使两副牌从长期来看更有利。之前有几项研究表明,IGT 的表现可能存在性别差异。因此,本研究汇集了 110 项研究的结果,旨在探索和量化 IGT 表现的性别差异。荟萃分析表明,在经典的 100 次 IGT 测试中,男性的表现往往优于女性(UMD = 3.381;P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信