↓ Skip to main content

Validating the PVL-Delta model for the Iowa gambling task

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Validating the PVL-Delta model for the Iowa gambling task
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00898
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Steingroever, Ruud Wetzels, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Abstract

Decision-making deficits in clinical populations are often assessed with the Iowa gambling task (IGT). Performance on this task is driven by latent psychological processes, the assessment of which requires an analysis using cognitive models. Two popular examples of such models are the Expectancy Valence (EV) and Prospect Valence Learning (PVL) models. These models have recently been subjected to sophisticated procedures of model checking, spawning a hybrid version of the EV and PVL models-the PVL-Delta model. In order to test the validity of the PVL-Delta model we present a parameter space partitioning (PSP) study and a test of selective influence. The PSP study allows one to assess the choice patterns that the PVL-Delta model generates across its entire parameter space. The PSP study revealed that the model accounts for empirical choice patterns featuring a preference for the good decks or the decks with infrequent losses; however, the model fails to account for empirical choice patterns featuring a preference for the bad decks. The test of selective influence investigates the effectiveness of experimental manipulations designed to target only a single model parameter. This test showed that the manipulations were successful for all but one parameter. To conclude, despite a few shortcomings, the PVL-Delta model seems to be a better IGT model than the popular EV and PVL models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Student > Master 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 39%
Decision Sciences 4 6%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 23 33%
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 03 December 2013.
All research outputs
#20,211,690
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,899
of 29,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,813
of 280,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#851
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.