Are correlations among behavioral decision making tasks moderated by simulated cognitive impairment?

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-23 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2022.2088289
Melissa T Buelow, Wesley R Barnhart, Thomas Crook, Julie A Suhr
{"title":"Are correlations among behavioral decision making tasks moderated by simulated cognitive impairment?","authors":"Melissa T Buelow, Wesley R Barnhart, Thomas Crook, Julie A Suhr","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2022.2088289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Behavioral decision making tasks are common in research settings, with only the Iowa Gambling Task available for clinical assessments. However, correlations among these tasks are low, indicating each may assess a distinct component of decision making. In addition, it is unclear whether these tasks are sensitive to invalid performance or even simulated impairment. The present study examined relationships among decision making tasks and whether simulated impairment moderates the relationships among them. Across two studies (Study 1: <i>n</i> = 166, Study 2: <i>n</i> = 130), undergraduate student participants were asked to try their best or to simulate a specific diagnosis (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; Study 1), decision making impairment (Study 2), or general cognitive impairment (Study 2). They then completed a battery of tests including embedded and standalone performance validity tests (PVTs) and three behavioral decision making tasks. Across studies, participants simulating impairment were not distinguishable from controls on any of the behavioral tasks. Few significant correlations emerged among tasks across studies and the pattern of relationships between tasks did not differ on the basis of simulator or PVT failure status. Collectively, our findings suggest that these tasks may not be vulnerable to simulated cognitive impairment, and that the tasks measure largely non-overlapping aspects of decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":" ","pages":"901-916"},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2022.2088289","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Behavioral decision making tasks are common in research settings, with only the Iowa Gambling Task available for clinical assessments. However, correlations among these tasks are low, indicating each may assess a distinct component of decision making. In addition, it is unclear whether these tasks are sensitive to invalid performance or even simulated impairment. The present study examined relationships among decision making tasks and whether simulated impairment moderates the relationships among them. Across two studies (Study 1: n = 166, Study 2: n = 130), undergraduate student participants were asked to try their best or to simulate a specific diagnosis (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; Study 1), decision making impairment (Study 2), or general cognitive impairment (Study 2). They then completed a battery of tests including embedded and standalone performance validity tests (PVTs) and three behavioral decision making tasks. Across studies, participants simulating impairment were not distinguishable from controls on any of the behavioral tasks. Few significant correlations emerged among tasks across studies and the pattern of relationships between tasks did not differ on the basis of simulator or PVT failure status. Collectively, our findings suggest that these tasks may not be vulnerable to simulated cognitive impairment, and that the tasks measure largely non-overlapping aspects of decision making.

行为决策任务之间的相关性是否受模拟认知障碍的调节?
行为决策任务在研究环境中很常见,只有爱荷华赌博任务可用于临床评估。然而,这些任务之间的相关性很低,这表明每个任务可能评估的是决策的一个不同组成部分。此外,目前还不清楚这些任务是否对无效表现甚至模拟损伤敏感。本研究考察了决策任务之间的关系,以及模拟损伤是否会调节它们之间的关系。在两项研究中(研究 1:n = 166;研究 2:n = 130),本科生参与者被要求尽力或模拟特定诊断(注意力缺陷/多动障碍;研究 1)、决策障碍(研究 2)或一般认知障碍(研究 2)。然后,他们完成了一系列测试,包括嵌入式和独立式成绩效度测试(PVT)以及三项行为决策任务。在所有研究中,模拟障碍参与者在任何行为任务上都无法与对照组区分开来。在不同的研究中,任务之间几乎没有明显的相关性,任务之间的关系模式也没有因为模拟器或 PVT 的失败状态而有所不同。总之,我们的研究结果表明,这些任务可能不容易受到模拟认知障碍的影响,而且这些任务所测量的决策制定方面基本上没有重叠。
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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