↓ Skip to main content

Is deck C an advantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task?

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral and Brain Functions, August 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Is deck C an advantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task?
Published in
Behavioral and Brain Functions, August 2007
DOI 10.1186/1744-9081-3-37
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yao-Chu Chiu, Ching-Hung Lin

Abstract

Dunn et al. performed a critical review identifying some problems in the Somatic Marker Hypothesis (SMH). Most of the arguments presented by Dunn focused on the insufficiencies for replication of skin conductance responses and somatic brain loops, but the study did not carefully reassess the core-task of SMH. In a related study, Lin and Chiu et al. identified a serious problem, namely the "prominent deck B phenomenon" in the original IGT. Building on this observation, Lin and Chiu also posited that deck C rather than deck A was preferred by normal decision makers due to good gain-loss frequency rather than good final-outcome. To verify this hypothesis, a modified IGT was designed that possessed high contrast of gain-loss value in each trial, with the aim of achieving a balance between decks A and C in terms of gain-loss frequency. Based on the basic assumption of IGT, participants should prefer deck C to deck A based on consideration of final-outcome. In contrast, based on the prediction of gain-loss frequency, participants should have roughly equal preferences for decks A and C.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 3%
Italy 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 108 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 26%
Researcher 23 20%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 13 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 69 59%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Computer Science 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 17 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 March 2022.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#158
of 417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,952
of 76,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 76,195 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.