Gambling Task
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
A Gambling Task is a risk-taking decisioning task that involves gambling choices (on uncertain outcomes).
- Example(s):
- a Gambling Card Game, such as an Iowa Gambling Task.
- …
- Counter-Example(s):
- See: Risky Choice, Bad Choice, Uncertain Promise, Uncertain Outcome.
References
2014
- (Wikipedia, 2014) ⇒ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling Retrieved:2014-9-19.
- Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize. The outcome of the wager is often immediate, such as a single roll of dice or a spin of a roulette wheel, but longer time frames are also common, allowing wagers on the outcome of a future sports contest or even an entire sports season. The term gaming in this context typically refers to instances in which the activity has been specifically permitted by law. The two words are not mutually exclusive; i.e., a “gaming” company offers (legal) “gambling” activities to the public and may be regulated by one of many gaming control boards, for example, the Nevada Gaming Control Board. However, this distinction is not universally observed in the English-speaking world. For instance, in the UK, the regulator of gambling activities is called the Gambling Commission (not the Gaming Commission). The word gaming is used more frequently since the rise of computer games to describe activities that do not necessarily involve wagering, especially online gaming, with the new usage still not having displaced the old usage as the primary definition in common dictionaries. Gambling is also a major international commercial activity, with the legal gambling market totaling an estimated $335 billion in 2009. In other forms, gambling can be conducted with materials which have a value, but are not real money. For example, players of marbles games might wager marbles, and likewise games of Pogs or Magic: The Gathering can be played with the collectible game pieces (respectively, small discs and trading cards) as stakes, resulting in a meta-game regarding the value of a player's collection of pieces.
2004
- (Vania Apkarian et al., 2004) ⇒ A. Vania Apkarian, Yamaya Sosa, Beth R. Krauss, P. Sebastian Thomas, Bruce E. Fredrickson, Robert E. Levy, R. Norman Harden, and Dante R. Chialvo. “Chronic pain patients are impaired on an emotional decision-making task.” In: Pain, 108(1).
- QUOTE: Bechara et al. (1994) developed a neuropsychological procedure, gambling task, which simulates, in real time, decision-making strategy by factoring the uncertainty of promises and outcomes, as well as reward and punishment. In the gambling task participants choose between decks of cards that yield high immediate gain but larger future losses (bad decks, A and B; Fig. 1a), and decks that yield lower immediate gain but a smaller future loss (good decks, C and D). They are instructed to make choices that maximize their gains, with minimal instructions regarding the rules of the task. Patients with orbitofrontal damage, unlike normal controls, perform defectively in this task (Bechara et al., 1994, 2000). We use this task to examine the cost that chronic pain may impose on emotional decision-making. Performance on the gambling task was compared between normal volunteers, chronic back pain (CBP) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) patients.
2003
- (Bolla et al., 2003) ⇒ K. I. Bolla, D. A. Eldreth, E. D. London, K. A. Kiehl, M. Mouratidis, C. Contoreggi, J. A. Matochik, V. Kurian, J.L. Cadet, A.S. Kimes, F.R. Funderburk, and M. Ernst. “Orbitofrontal cortex dysfunction in abstinent cocaine abusers performing a decision-making task.” In: Neuroimage, 19(3).
- QUOTE: The Iowa Gambling Task measures the participant’s ability to choose between high gains with a risk of extremely high losses, and low gains with a risk of smaller losses. Participants were instructed to win as much money as possible by picking one card at a time from each of the 4 decks (A, B, C, and D) in any order until the computer instructed them to stop (after the selection of the 100th card). While performing the task, participants were informed of the amount of money they had left after each card was selected. Participants selected on average about 20 cards per minute. For further detail on this task see Ernst et al., (2002). The measure of performance used for all subsequent analyses was the net global outcome score (net score). This was calculated by subtracting the total number of cards selected from the disadvantage decks (A+B) from the total number of cards selected from the advantage decks (C+D) in trial 1 and trial 2 and then deriving a mean for both trials. The PET acquisition scan started 1 min after the beginning of the task and lasted for approximately 1 min during the scan to ensure that the participant was cognitively engaged in the task. The participant continued to play until the computer informed them to stop after selecting 100 cards. Participants were instructed that for each “game dollar” they won, they would receive one cent and could therefore make up to $20.00 in “real money” per session.
2002
- (Ernst et al., 2002) ⇒ Monique Ernst, Karen Bolla, Maria Mouratidis, Carlo Contoreggi, John A. Matochik, V. Kurian, Jean-Lud Cadet, Alane S. Kimes, and Edythe D. London. (2002). “Decision-making in a risk-taking task: A PET study.” In: Neuropsychopharmacology, 26.
- QUOTE: The risk-taking task is a computerized gambling card game that tests the ability to choose between high gains with a risk for even higher losses, and low gain with a risk for smaller losses. It was developed to assess neurological patients, who have ventromedial prefrontal lesions and exhibit poor decision-making in everyday life (Bechara et al. 1994). Research participants were instructed to accumulate as much (play) money as possible by picking one card at a time from each of four decks (A, B, C, and D) until they were told to stop (after selection of the 100th card). Subjects were also told that they would receive one cent for each dollar amount accumulated (maximum possible $20.00). Cards could be selected from any deck in any order, with no time limit for each choice. Once the participant selected a card, a first response, "you win $50.00" (or $100.00), immediately appeared on the screen, and remained for 1.5 s until the subject was prompted to play again by the message "Pick a card". If a loss was also attached to that choice, a 1.5 s loss message was added on the screen (e.g., "you lose $75.00"). At the end of the 1.5 s, subjects were ready to make their next choice, such that the self-pacing of the task was not determined by variable time to think about the next choice. The number of cards picked during the 1 min period of collection of rCBF data did not differ significantly between run 1 (mean (SD) = 20.4 (3.7) cards) and run 2 (mean (SD) = 21.9 (3.2) cards), and the coefficient of variation (SD/mean) was 17.6% for run 1 and 14.6% for run 2. The amount of money left to the participant was updated on the screen after each card pick. On average, subjects chose 20 cards per minute. Each PET scan started 1 min after initiation of the task (after selection of 20 cards) and lasted for 1 min (during selection of the next 20 cards). Subjects continued to play until the game was over (100 cards selected). The active task took an average of 5 min.
The decks differed along two dimensions: immediate gain and risk of penalties. Every card from Decks A and B yielded a gain of $100, and every card from Decks C and D yielded a gain of $50. A certain number of cards in each of the four decks also carried a penalty, in such a way that the accumulated penalties were larger than the accumulated gains in Decks A and B (disadvantageous decks), and the accumulated penalties were smaller than the accumulated gains in Decks C and D (advantageous decks). Thus, continued choice from either Deck C or D led to a net gain ($250/10 cards), whereas choice from either Deck A or B led to a net loss (-$250/10 cards). The optimal strategy was to minimize the overall loss by avoiding the short-term appeal of Decks A and B in favor of the slower, but ultimately positive, gain of Decks C and D.
Performance on the risk-taking task was measured by a global outcome score (net score), consisting of the total number of cards chosen from the advantageous decks (C+D) minus the number of cards chosen from the disadvantageous decks (A+B) (Bechara et al. 1994).
- QUOTE: The risk-taking task is a computerized gambling card game that tests the ability to choose between high gains with a risk for even higher losses, and low gain with a risk for smaller losses. It was developed to assess neurological patients, who have ventromedial prefrontal lesions and exhibit poor decision-making in everyday life (Bechara et al. 1994). Research participants were instructed to accumulate as much (play) money as possible by picking one card at a time from each of four decks (A, B, C, and D) until they were told to stop (after selection of the 100th card). Subjects were also told that they would receive one cent for each dollar amount accumulated (maximum possible $20.00). Cards could be selected from any deck in any order, with no time limit for each choice. Once the participant selected a card, a first response, "you win $50.00" (or $100.00), immediately appeared on the screen, and remained for 1.5 s until the subject was prompted to play again by the message "Pick a card". If a loss was also attached to that choice, a 1.5 s loss message was added on the screen (e.g., "you lose $75.00"). At the end of the 1.5 s, subjects were ready to make their next choice, such that the self-pacing of the task was not determined by variable time to think about the next choice. The number of cards picked during the 1 min period of collection of rCBF data did not differ significantly between run 1 (mean (SD) = 20.4 (3.7) cards) and run 2 (mean (SD) = 21.9 (3.2) cards), and the coefficient of variation (SD/mean) was 17.6% for run 1 and 14.6% for run 2. The amount of money left to the participant was updated on the screen after each card pick. On average, subjects chose 20 cards per minute. Each PET scan started 1 min after initiation of the task (after selection of 20 cards) and lasted for 1 min (during selection of the next 20 cards). Subjects continued to play until the game was over (100 cards selected). The active task took an average of 5 min.
1994
- (Bechara et al., 2004) ⇒ Antoine Bechara, Antonio R. Damasio, Hanna Damasio, and Steven W. Anderson. (1994). “Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex.” In: Cognition, 50(1). doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3
- QUOTE: Following damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, humans develop a defect in real-life decision-making, which contrasts with otherwise normal intellectual functions. Currently, there is no neuropsychological probe to detect in the laboratory, and the cognitive and neural mechanisms responsible for this defect have resisted explanation. Here, using a novel task which simulates real-life decision-making in the way it factors uncertainty of premises and outcomes, as well as reward and punishment, we find that prefrontal patients, unlike controls, are oblivious to the future consequences of their actions, and seem to be guided by immediate prospects only.