ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2024
Test-retest reliability of the play-or-pass version of the Iowa Gambling Task.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hot and Cool Executive Functions in Middle Childhood: Evidence for a Weak but Process-Specific Relationship.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Reward-specific learning parameters change across normative adolescent development and are blunted in youth with high risk for depression.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026Article
- Associations Between Steep Delay Discounting and Punishment Learning.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Reward and punishment learning among people with a lifetime history of anxiety, depression, and substance use disorder.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is used to assess decision-making in clinical populations. The original IGT does not disambiguate reward and punishment learning; however, an adaptation of the task, the "play-or-pass" IGT, was developed to better distinguish between reward and punishment learning. We evaluated the test-retest reliability of measures of reward and punishment learning from the play-or-pass IGT and examined associations with self-reported measures of reward/punishment sensitivity and internalizing symptoms. Participants completed the task across two sessions, and we calculated mean-level differences and rank-order stability of behavioral measures across the two sessions using traditional scoring, involving session-wide choice proportions, and computational modeling, involving estimates of different aspects of trial-level learning. Measures using both approaches were reliable; however, computational modeling provided more insights regarding between-session changes in performance, and how performance related to self-reported measures of reward/punishment sensitivity and internalizing symptoms. Our results show promise in using the play-or-pass IGT to assess decision-making; however, further work is still necessary to validate the play-or-pass IGT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.