↓ Skip to main content

Iowa Gambling Task with non-clinical participants: effects of using real + virtual cards and additional trials

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Iowa Gambling Task with non-clinical participants: effects of using real + virtual cards and additional trials
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00935
Pubmed ID
Authors

William H. Overman, Allison Pierce

Abstract

Performance on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) in clinical populations can be interpreted only in relation to established baseline performance in normal populations. As in all comparisons of assessment tools, the normal baseline must reflect performance under conditions in which subjects can function at their best levels. In this review, we show that a number of variables enhance IGT performance in non-clinical participants. First, optimal performance is produced by having participants turn over real cards while viewing virtual cards on a computer screen. The use of only virtual cards results in significantly lower performance than the combination of real + virtual cards. Secondly, administration of more than 100 trials also enhances performance. When using the real/virtual card procedure, performance is shown to significantly increase from early adolescence through young adulthood. Under these conditions young (mean age 19 years) and older (mean age 59 years) adults perform equally. Females, as a group, score lower than males because females tend to choose cards from high-frequency-of-gain Deck B. Groups of females with high or low gonadal hormones perform equally. Concurrent tasks, e.g., presentation of aromas, decrease performance in males. Age and gender effects are discussed in terms of a dynamic between testosterone and orbital prefrontal cortex.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 23%
Student > Master 13 16%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 46%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 19 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2013.
All research outputs
#19,581,458
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,919
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,047
of 292,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#753
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.