Neural Correlates of Successful and Unsuccessful Strategical Mechanisms Involved in Uncertain Decision-Making

Julie Giustiniani, Damien Gabriel, Magali Nicolier, Julie Monnin, Emmanuel Haffen, Julie Giustiniani, Damien Gabriel, Magali Nicolier, Julie Monnin, Emmanuel Haffen

Abstract

The ability to develop successful long-term strategies in uncertain situations relies on complex neural mechanisms. Although lesion studies have shown some of the mechanisms involved, it is still unknown why some healthy subjects are able to make the right decision whereas others are not. The aim of our study was to investigate neurophysiological differences underlying this ability to develop a successful strategy in a group of healthy subjects playing a monetary card game called the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). In this task, subjects have to win and earn money by choosing between four decks of cards, two were advantageous in the long term and two disadvantageous. Twenty healthy right-handed subjects performed the IGT while their cerebral activity was recorded by electroencephalography. Based on their behavioral performances, two groups of subjects could clearly be distinguished: one who selected the good decks and thus succeeded in developing a Favorable strategy (9 subjects) and one who remained Undecided (11 subjects). No neural difference was found between each group before the selection of a deck, but in both groups a greater negativity was found emerging from the right superior frontal gyrus 600 ms before a disadvantageous selection. During the processing of the feedback, an attenuation of the P200 and P300 waveforms was found for the Undecided group, and a P300 originating from the medial frontal gyrus was found in response to a loss only in the Favorable group. Our results suggest that undecided subjects are hyposensitive to the valence of the cards during gambling, which affects the feedback processing.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Design of the experiment.
Fig 1. Design of the experiment.
(a) For the first trial and trial following the break, subjects had to fix a cross while making their selection by pressing a key. (b) Selection was followed by a feedback of the deck chosen and the total credit amount. (c) Then the money involved in this trial was displayed. (d) A fixation point appeared to focus the eyes, followed by a fixation letter announcing the result. Half of subjects (5 men/5 women) received the information that (e) the letter P means loss (“Perdu” means loss) and (f) letter V means win (“Victoire” means victory), and the other half received the opposite information.
Fig 2. Behavioral performance in the Iowa…
Fig 2. Behavioral performance in the Iowa Gambling Task.
(a) Evolution of the net score in each block for the whole group. A significant difference occurred between the first block and the last 3 blocks corresponding to the conceptual phase. (b) Average net score for each subject during the conceptual phase. Two distinct populations could clearly be distinguished in this phase: Favorable and Undecided groups. (c) Evolution of the net score in each block for the Favorable and Undecided groups.
Fig 3. Decision preceding negativity.
Fig 3. Decision preceding negativity.
(a) Grand average of electrophysiological activity of the anticipation of the disadvantageous or advantageous decks on the six clusters. (b) Differences in the anticipation generation between disadvantageous and advantageous decks. A greater activity at the right frontal gyrus level was observed for the disadvantageous decks. Please note that the left side of the brain is shown on the left side of the axial MRI slides.
Fig 4. Feedback processing.
Fig 4. Feedback processing.
Top: Feedback processing on the electrode Fz. Middle: surface topography for gain and loss in both groups of subject. Down: source imaging.

References

    1. Bechara A, Damasio AR. The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ Behav. 2005;52: 336–372.10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010
    1. Platt ML, Huettel SA. Risky business: the neuroeconomics of decision making under uncertainty. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11: 398–403. 10.1038/nn2062
    1. Cui J, Chen Y, Wang Y, Shum DHK, Chan RCK. Neural correlates of uncertain decision making: ERP evidence from the Iowa Gambling Task. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7: 776 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00776
    1. Cavedini P, Riboldi G, D’Annucci A, Belotti P, Cisima M, Bellodi L. Decision-making heterogeneity in obsessive-compulsive disorder: ventromedial prefrontal cortex function predicts different treatment outcomes. Neuropsychologia. 2002;40: 205–211.
    1. Cavedini P, Bassi T, Ubbiali A, Casolari A, Giordani S, Zorzi C, et al. Neuropsychological investigation of decision-making in anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Res. 2004;127: 259–266. 10.1016/j.psychres.2004.03.012
    1. Jollant F, Guillaume S, Jaussent I, Castelnau D, Malafosse A, Courtet P. Impaired decision-making in suicide attempters may increase the risk of problems in affective relationships. J Affect Disord. 2007;99: 59–62. 10.1016/j.jad.2006.07.022
    1. Cavedini P, Riboldi G, Keller R, D’Annucci A, Bellodi L. Frontal lobe dysfunction in pathological gambling patients. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51: 334–341.
    1. Bechara A, Damasio H. Decision-making and addiction (part I): impaired activation of somatic states in substance dependent individuals when pondering decisions with negative future consequences. Neuropsychologia. 2002;40: 1675–1689.
    1. Bechara A, Dolan S, Hindes A. Decision-making and addiction (part II): myopia for the future or hypersensitivity to reward? Neuropsychologia. 2002;40: 1690–1705.
    1. Tanabe J, Thompson L, Claus E, Dalwani M, Hutchison K, Banich MT. Prefrontal cortex activity is reduced in gambling and nongambling substance users during decision-making. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007;28: 1276–1286. 10.1002/hbm.20344
    1. Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, Anderson SW. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition. 1994;50: 7–15.
    1. Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio AR. Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science. 1997;275: 1293–1295.
    1. Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio H. Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain J Neurol. 2000;123 (Pt 11): 2189–2202.
    1. Dunn BD, Dalgleish T, Lawrence AD. The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical evaluation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30: 239–271. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001
    1. Bechara A, Damasio H, Damasio AR. Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991. 2000;10: 295–307.
    1. Lin C-H, Chiu Y-C, Cheng C-M, Hsieh J-C. Brain maps of Iowa gambling task. BMC Neurosci. 2008;9: 72 10.1186/1471-2202-9-72
    1. Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio AR. The Iowa Gambling Task and the somatic marker hypothesis: some questions and answers. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005;9: 159–162; discussion 162–164. 10.1016/j.tics.2005.02.002
    1. Buelow MT, Suhr JA. Construct validity of the Iowa Gambling Task. Neuropsychol Rev. 2009;19: 102–114. 10.1007/s11065-009-9083-4
    1. Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio H, Damasio AR. Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to prefrontal cortex. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991. 1996;6: 215–225.
    1. Chiu Y-C, Lin C-H, Huang J-T, Lin S, Lee P-L, Hsieh J-C. Immediate gain is long-term loss: Are there foresighted decision makers in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behav Brain Funct. 2008;4: 13 10.1186/1744-9081-4-13
    1. Fukui H, Murai T, Fukuyama H, Hayashi T, Hanakawa T. Functional activity related to risk anticipation during performance of the Iowa Gambling Task. NeuroImage. 2005;24: 253–259. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.08.028
    1. Michel CM, Murray MM. Towards the utilization of EEG as a brain imaging tool. NeuroImage. 2012;61: 371–385. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.039
    1. Bland AR, Schaefer A. Electrophysiological correlates of decision making under varying levels of uncertainty. Brain Res. 2011;1417: 55–66. 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.08.031
    1. Gehring WJ, Willoughby AR. The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science. 2002;295: 2279–2282. 10.1126/science.1066893
    1. Hajcak G, Moser JS, Holroyd CB, Simons RF. The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes. Biol Psychol. 2006;71: 148–154. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.04.001
    1. Oberg SAK, Christie GJ, Tata MS. Problem gamblers exhibit reward hypersensitivity in medial frontal cortex during gambling. Neuropsychologia. 2011;49: 3768–3775. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.037
    1. Holroyd CB, Hajcak G, Larsen JT. The good, the bad and the neutral: electrophysiological responses to feedback stimuli. Brain Res. 2006;1105: 93–101. 10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.015
    1. Bianchin M, Angrilli A. Decision Preceding Negativity in the Iowa Gambling Task: an ERP study. Brain Cogn. 2011;75: 273–280. 10.1016/j.bandc.2011.01.005
    1. Bagneux V, Thomassin N, Gonthier C, Roulin J-L. Working memory in the processing of the Iowa Gambling Task: an individual differences approach. PloS One. 2013;8: e81498 10.1371/journal.pone.0081498
    1. Mapelli D, Di Rosa E, Cavalletti M, Schiff S, Tamburin S. Decision and dopaminergic system: an ERPs study of Iowa gambling task in Parkinson’s disease. Front Psychol. 2014;5: 684 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00684
    1. Bechara A, Dolan S, Denburg N, Hindes A, Anderson SW, Nathan PE. Decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers. Neuropsychologia. 2001;39: 376–389.
    1. Meyer G, Hauffa BP, Schedlowski M, Pawlak C, Stadler MA, Exton MS. Casino gambling increases heart rate and salivary cortisol in regular gamblers. Biol Psychiatry. 2000;48: 948–953.
    1. Meyer G, Schwertfeger J, Exton MS, Janssen OE, Knapp W, Stadler MA, et al. Neuroendocrine response to casino gambling in problem gamblers. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2004;29: 1272–1280. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2004.03.005
    1. Miedl SF, Fehr T, Meyer G, Herrmann M. Neurobiological correlates of problem gambling in a quasi-realistic blackjack scenario as revealed by fMRI. Psychiatry Res. 2010;181: 165–173. 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2009.11.008
    1. Collective E. Jeux de hasard et d’argent. Contextes et addictions Paris: Les éditions INSERM; 2008.
    1. Lejoyeux M. Abrégés Addictologie Masson; Paris; 2009.
    1. Lesieur HR, Blume SB. The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. Am J Psychiatry. 1987;144: 1184–1188.
    1. Reynaud M. Usages nocifs de substances psychoactives: Identification des usages à risque, outils de repérage, conduites à tenir. Paris; 2002.
    1. Beck AT, Beamesderfer A. Assessment of depression: The depression inventory In: Pichot P, Olivier-Martin R, editors. Psychological measurements in psychopharmacology. Oxford, England: S. Karger; 1974. p. 267.
    1. Beck AT, Steer RA, Carbin MG. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev. 1988;8: 77–100. 10.1016/0272-7358(88)90050-5
    1. Collet L, Cottraux J. [The shortened Beck depression inventory (13 items). Study of the concurrent validity with the Hamilton scale and Widlöcher’s retardation scale]. L’Encéphale. 1986;12: 77–79.
    1. Yao SN, Note I, Fanget F, Albuisson E, Bouvard M, Jalenques I, et al. [Social anxiety in patients with social phobia: validation of the Liebowitz social anxiety scale: the French version]. L’Encéphale. 1999;25: 429–435.
    1. Bouvard M. Questionnaires et échelles d’évaluation de la personnalité Elsevier; Masson: 2009.
    1. Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES. Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. J Clin Psychol. 1995;51: 768–774.
    1. John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle R. The big five inventory—versions 4a and 54 Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research; 1991.
    1. Plaisant O, Courtois R, Réveillère C, Mendelsohn GA, John OP. Validation par analyse factorielle du Big Five Inventory français (BFI-Fr). Analyse convergente avec le NEO-PI-R. Ann Méd-Psychol Rev Psychiatr. 2010;168: 97–106. 10.1016/j.amp.2009.09.003
    1. Plaisant O, Srivastava S, Mendelsohn GA, Debray Q, John OP. Relations entre le Big Five Inventory français et le manuel diagnostique des troubles mentaux dans un échantillon clinique français. Ann Méd-Psychol Rev Psychiatr. 2005;163: 161–167. 10.1016/j.amp.2005.02.002
    1. Perrin F, Bertrand O, Pernier J. Scalp current density mapping: value and estimation from potential data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1987;34: 283–288.
    1. Hajcak G, Holroyd CB, Moser JS, Simons RF. Brain potentials associated with expected and unexpected good and bad outcomes. Psychophysiology. 2005;42: 161–170. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00278.x
    1. Singh V. A potential role of reward and punishment in the facilitation of the emotion-cognition dichotomy in the Iowa Gambling Task. Front Psychol. 2013;4: 944 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00944
    1. Birbaumer N, Elbert T, Canavan AG, Rockstroh B. Slow potentials of the cerebral cortex and behavior. Physiol Rev. 1990;70: 1–41.
    1. Asp E, Manzel K, Koestner B, Denburg NL, Tranel D. Benefit of the doubt: a new view of the role of the prefrontal cortex in executive functioning and decision making. Front Neurosci. 2013;7: 86 10.3389/fnins.2013.00086
    1. Coan JA, Allen JJB. Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion. Biol Psychol. 2004;67: 7–49. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.03.002
    1. Ohgami Y, Kotani Y, Tsukamoto T, Omura K, Inoue Y, Aihara Y, et al. Effects of monetary reward and punishment on stimulus-preceding negativity. Psychophysiology. 2006;43: 227–236. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2006.00396.x
    1. Cunningham WA, Raye CL, Johnson MK. Neural correlates of evaluation associated with promotion and prevention regulatory focus. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005;5: 202–211.
    1. Ernst M, Bolla K, Mouratidis M, Contoreggi C, Matochik JA, Kurian V, et al. Decision-making in a risk-taking task: a PET study. Neuropsychopharmacol Off Publ Am Coll Neuropsychopharmacol. 2002;26: 682–691. 10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00414-6
    1. Qin J, Han S. Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying identification of environmental risks. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47: 397–405. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.010
    1. Wang Y, Deng Y, Sui D, Tang Y-Y. Neural correlates of cultural differences in moral decision making: a combined ERP and sLORETA study. Neuroreport. 2014;25: 110–116. 10.1097/WNR.0000000000000077
    1. Xu L, Liang Z-Y, Wang K, Li S, Jiang T. Neural mechanism of intertemporal choice: from discounting future gains to future losses. Brain Res. 2009;1261: 65–74. 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.12.061
    1. Holroyd CB, Coles MGH. The neural basis of human error processing: reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychol Rev. 2002;109: 679–709.
    1. Schuermann B, Endrass T, Kathmann N. Neural correlates of feedback processing in decision-making under risk. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6: 204 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00204
    1. Polezzi D, Lotto L, Daum I, Sartori G, Rumiati R. Predicting outcomes of decisions in the brain. Behav Brain Res. 2008;187: 116–122. 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.09.001
    1. Ferdinand NK, Kray J. Age-related changes in processing positive and negative feedback: is there a positivity effect for older adults? Biol Psychol. 2013;94: 235–241. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.07.006
    1. Rigoni D, Polezzi D, Rumiati R, Guarino R, Sartori G. When people matter more than money: an ERPs study. Brain Res Bull. 2010;81: 445–452. 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2009.12.003
    1. Horovitz SG, Skudlarski P, Gore JC. Correlations and dissociations between BOLD signal and P300 amplitude in an auditory oddball task: a parametric approach to combining fMRI and ERP. Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;20: 319–325.
    1. Nieuwenhuis S, Schweizer TS, Mars RB, Botvinick MM, Hajcak G. Error-likelihood prediction in the medial frontal cortex: a critical evaluation. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991. 2007;17: 1570–1581. 10.1093/cercor/bhl068
    1. Polich J. Clinical application of the P300 event-related brain potential. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2004;15: 133–161.
    1. Polich J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol Off J Int Fed Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;118: 2128–2148. 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019
    1. Nieuwenhuis S, Aston-Jones G, Cohen JD. Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system. Psychol Bull. 2005;131: 510–532. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.510
    1. Polezzi D, Sartori G, Rumiati R, Vidotto G, Daum I. Brain correlates of risky decision-making. NeuroImage. 2010;49: 1886–1894. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.08.068
    1. Yeung N, Sanfey AG. Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci. 2004;24: 6258–6264. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4537-03.2004
    1. Derntl B, Pintzinger N, Kryspin-Exner I, Schöpf V. The impact of sex hormone concentrations on decision-making in females and males. Front Neurosci. 2014;8 10.3389/fnins.2014.00352
    1. Overman WH, Pierce A. Iowa Gambling Task with non-clinical participants: effects of using real + virtual cards and additional trials. Front Psychol. 2013;4 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00935
    1. Reavis R, Overman WH. Adult sex differences on a decision-making task previously shown to depend on the orbital prefrontal cortex. Behav Neurosci. 2001;115: 196–206.
    1. Bolla KI, Eldreth DA, Matochik JA, Cadet JL. Sex-related differences in a gambling task and its neurological correlates. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991. 2004;14: 1226–1232. 10.1093/cercor/bhh083
    1. Van Honk J, Schutter DJLG, Hermans EJ, Putman P. Low cortisol levels and the balance between punishment sensitivity and reward dependency. Neuroreport. 2003;14: 1993–1996. 10.1097/
    1. Van den Bos R, Homberg J, de Visser L. A critical review of sex differences in decision-making tasks: focus on the Iowa Gambling Task. Behav Brain Res. 2013;238: 95–108. 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.10.002
    1. Treadway MT, Bossaller NA, Shelton RC, Zald DH. Effort-based decision-making in major depressive disorder: a translational model of motivational anhedonia. J Abnorm Psychol. 2012;121: 553–558. 10.1037/a0028813
    1. Rogers RD. The roles of dopamine and serotonin in decision making: evidence from pharmacological experiments in humans. Neuropsychopharmacol Off Publ Am Coll Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011;36: 114–132. 10.1038/npp.2010.165

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe