131
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Rodent Versions of the Iowa Gambling Task: Opportunities and Challenges for the Understanding of Decision-Making

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Impaired decision-making is a core problem in several psychiatric disorders including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, obsessive–compulsive disorder, mania, drug addiction, eating disorders, and substance abuse as well as in chronic pain. To ensure progress in the understanding of the neuropathophysiology of these disorders, animal models with good construct and predictive validity are indispensable. Many human studies aimed at measuring decision-making capacities use the Iowa gambling task (IGT), a task designed to model everyday life choices through a conflict between immediate gratification and long-term outcomes. Recently, new rodent models based on the same principle have been developed to investigate the neurobiological mechanisms underlying IGT-like decision-making on behavioral, neural, and pharmacological levels. The comparative strengths, as well as the similarities and differences between these paradigms are discussed. The contribution of these models to elucidate the neurobehavioral factors that lead to poor decision-making and to the development of better treatments for psychiatric illness is considered, along with important future directions and potential limitations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references187

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The role of the medial frontal cortex in cognitive control.

          Adaptive goal-directed behavior involves monitoring of ongoing actions and performance outcomes, and subsequent adjustments of behavior and learning. We evaluate new findings in cognitive neuroscience concerning cortical interactions that subserve the recruitment and implementation of such cognitive control. A review of primate and human studies, along with a meta-analysis of the human functional neuroimaging literature, suggest that the detection of unfavorable outcomes, response errors, response conflict, and decision uncertainty elicits largely overlapping clusters of activation foci in an extensive part of the posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC). A direct link is delineated between activity in this area and subsequent adjustments in performance. Emerging evidence points to functional interactions between the pMFC and the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC), so that monitoring-related pMFC activity serves as a signal that engages regulatory processes in the LPFC to implement performance adjustments.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards.

            When humans are offered the choice between rewards available at different points in time, the relative values of the options are discounted according to their expected delays until delivery. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we examined the neural correlates of time discounting while subjects made a series of choices between monetary reward options that varied by delay to delivery. We demonstrate that two separate systems are involved in such decisions. Parts of the limbic system associated with the midbrain dopamine system, including paralimbic cortex, are preferentially activated by decisions involving immediately available rewards. In contrast, regions of the lateral prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex are engaged uniformly by intertemporal choices irrespective of delay. Furthermore, the relative engagement of the two systems is directly associated with subjects' choices, with greater relative fronto-parietal activity when subjects choose longer term options.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy.

              Deciding advantageously in a complex situation is thought to require overt reasoning on declarative knowledge, namely, on facts pertaining to premises, options for action, and outcomes of actions that embody the pertinent previous experience. An alternative possibility was investigated: that overt reasoning is preceded by a nonconscious biasing step that uses neural systems other than those that support declarative knowledge. Normal participants and patients with prefrontal damage and decision-making defects performed a gambling task in which behavioral, psychophysiological, and self-account measures were obtained in parallel. Normals began to choose advantageously before they realized which strategy worked best, whereas prefrontal patients continued to choose disadvantageously even after they knew the correct strategy. Moreover, normals began to generate anticipatory skin conductance responses (SCRs) whenever they pondered a choice that turned out to be risky, before they knew explicitly that it was a risky choice, whereas patients never developed anticipatory SCRs, although some eventually realized which choices were risky. The results suggest that, in normal individuals, nonconscious biases guide behavior before conscious knowledge does. Without the help of such biases, overt knowledge may be insufficient to ensure advantageous behavior.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Front Neurosci
                Front. Neurosci.
                Frontiers in Neuroscience
                Frontiers Research Foundation
                1662-4548
                1662-453X
                28 June 2011
                10 October 2011
                2011
                : 5
                : 109
                Affiliations
                [1] 1simpleDepartment of Neuroscience and Pharmacology, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Netherlands
                [2] 2simpleDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Nijmegen, Netherlands
                [3] 3simpleDivision of Behavioural Neuroscience, Department of Animals in Science and Society, Utrecht University Utrecht, Netherlands
                [4] 4simpleDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
                [5] 5simpleCNRS, UMR 5287, Aquitaine Institute of Cognitive and Integrative Neuroscience, University of Bordeaux Bordeaux, France
                [6] 6simpleDepartamento de Biologia Experimental, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto Porto, Portugal
                Author notes

                Edited by: Tobias Kalenscher, Heinrich-Heine University Duesseldorf, Germany

                Reviewed by: Leontien Diergaarde, VU Medical Center, Netherlands; Daniel Bryden, University of Maryland College Park, USA

                *Correspondence: Leonie de Visser, Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands. e-mail: l.devisser-10@ 123456umcutrecht.nl

                Leonie de Visser and Judith R. Homberg have contributed equally to this work.

                This article was submitted to Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience, a specialty of Frontiers in Neuroscience.

                Article
                10.3389/fnins.2011.00109
                3189637
                22013406
                f9fce57c-e572-4746-8a2c-662b9f2766a6
                Copyright © 2011 de Visser, Homberg, Mitsogiannis, Zeeb, Rivalan, Fitoussi, Galhardo, van den Bos, Winstanley and Dellu-Hagedorn.

                This is an open-access article subject to a non-exclusive license between the authors and Frontiers Media SA, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and other Frontiers conditions are complied with.

                History
                : 09 June 2011
                : 29 August 2011
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 217, Pages: 21, Words: 20698
                Categories
                Neuroscience
                Review Article

                Neurosciences
                validity,serotonin,animal model,neurobiology,dopamine,iowa gambling task
                Neurosciences
                validity, serotonin, animal model, neurobiology, dopamine, iowa gambling task

                Comments

                Comment on this article