↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Decision-making deficits in patients with chronic schizophrenia: Iowa Gambling Task and Prospect Valence Learning model

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Decision-making deficits in patients with chronic schizophrenia: Iowa Gambling Task and Prospect Valence Learning model
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s103821
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myung-Sun Kim, Bit-Na Kang, Jae Young Lim

Abstract

Decision-making is the process of forming preferences for possible options, selecting and executing actions, and evaluating the outcome. This study used the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the Prospect Valence Learning (PVL) model to investigate deficits in risk-reward related decision-making in patients with chronic schizophrenia, and to identify decision-making processes that contribute to poor IGT performance in these patients. Thirty-nine patients with schizophrenia and 31 healthy controls participated. Decision-making was measured by total net score, block net scores, and the total number of cards selected from each deck of the IGT. PVL parameters were estimated with the Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling scheme in OpenBugs and BRugs, its interface to R, and the estimated parameters were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U-test. The schizophrenia group received significantly lower total net scores compared to the control group. In terms of block net scores, an interaction effect of group × block was observed. The block net scores of the schizophrenia group did not differ across the five blocks, whereas those of the control group increased as the blocks progressed. The schizophrenia group obtained significantly lower block net scores in the fourth and fifth blocks of the IGT and selected cards from deck D (advantageous) less frequently than the control group. Additionally, the schizophrenia group had significantly lower values on the utility-shape, loss-aversion, recency, and consistency parameters of the PVL model. These results indicate that patients with schizophrenia experience deficits in decision-making, possibly due to failure in learning the expected value of each deck, and incorporating outcome experiences of previous trials into expectancies about options in the present trial.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 37 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 38%
Neuroscience 6 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 8 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,374,349
of 14,533,317 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#823
of 2,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,037
of 263,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#38
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,533,317 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 263,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.