|
A comparison of gamble structures between the Iowa Gambling Task and Soochow Gambling Task |
||||
| Iowa Gambling Task |
Gain-Loss Frequency (per 10 cards) |
EV (per 10 cards) |
Choice Prediction Based on Gain-Loss Frequency |
Choice Prediction Based on EV |
|
|
||||
| A (Bad) |
5 G 5 L |
-$250 |
||
| B (Bad) |
9 G 1 L |
-$250 |
B |
|
| C (Good) |
6.25 G 1.25 L 2.5 S |
+$250 |
C |
C |
| D (Good) |
9 G 1 L |
+$250 |
D |
D |
|
|
||||
| Soochow Gambling Task * |
(per 5 cards) |
(per 5 cards) |
||
|
|
||||
| A (Bad) |
4 G 1 L |
-$250 |
A |
|
| B (Bad) |
4 G 1 L |
-$250 |
B |
|
| C (Good) |
1 G 4 L |
+$250 |
C |
|
| D (Good) |
1 G 4 L |
+$250 |
D |
|
|
(G: gain, L: loss, S: standoff). * The deck structure for the Soochow Gambling Task is as follows: A, four consecutive gains of $200 followed by a loss of $1,050; B, four consecutive gains of $100 followed by a loss of $650; C, four consecutive losses of $200 followed by a gain of $1,050; D, four consecutive losses of $100 followed by a gain of $650. The experiment was using token money denominated in New Taiwan Dollars. For ease of comparison, the amount of money was nearly equated to U.S. currency in IGT. | ||||
Chiu et al. Behavioral and Brain Functions 2008 4:13 doi:10.1186/1744-9081-4-13 |
||||