↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the Iowa and Soochow Gambling Tasks in Opiate Users

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Comparing the Iowa and Soochow Gambling Tasks in Opiate Users
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Upton, Rebecca Kerestes, Julie C. Stout

Abstract

The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is in many respects the gold standard for demonstrating decision making in drug using groups. However, it is not clear how basic task properties such as the frequency and magnitude of rewards and losses affect choice behavior in drug users and even in healthy players. In this study, we used a variant of the IGT, the Soochow Gambling Task (SGT), to observe choice behavior in opiate users and healthy decision makers in a task where reward frequency is not confounded with the long-term outcome of each alternative. In both opiate users (n = 26) and healthy controls (n = 27), we show that reward frequency strongly influences choice behavior in the IGT and SGT. Neither group showed a consistent preference across tasks for alternatives with good long-term outcomes, but rather, subjects appeared to prefer alternatives that win most frequently. We interpret this as evidence to suggest that healthy players perform better than opiate users on the IGT because they are able to utilize gain-loss frequencies to guide their choice behavior on the task. This challenges the previous notion that poorer performance on the IGT in drug users is due to an inability to be guided by future consequences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Researcher 5 16%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 53%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 April 2012.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,061
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,286
of 250,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#96
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 250,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.