Question

How has the Iowa Gambling Task been used to demonstrate insensitivity to negative feedback in patients with lesions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex? What is the somatic marker hypothesis? Describe tasks (and the results) that demonstrate an advantage to insensitivity to negative feedback.

Answer 1

Iowa Gambling Task (IGT): The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) involves probabilistic learning via monetary rewards and punishments, where advantageous task performance requires subjects to forego potential large immediate rewards for small longer-term rewards to avoid larger losses. Pathological gamblers (PG) perform worse on the IGT compared to controls, relating to their persistent preference toward high, immediate, and uncertain rewards despite experiencing larger losses. In this contribution, we review studies that investigated processes associated with poor IGT performance in PG. Findings from these studies seem to fit with recent neurocognitive models of addiction, which argue that the diminished ability of addicted individuals to ponder short-term against long-term consequences of a choice may be the product of an hyperactive automatic attentional and memory system for signaling the presence of addiction-related cues (e.g., high uncertain rewards associated with disadvantageous decks selection during the IGT) and for attributing to such cues pleasure and excitement.

Defination: Gambling disorder is defined as persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior characterized by an inability to control gambling that disrupts personal, family or vocational pursuits (APA, 2013). More specifically, similar to substance (e.g., alcohol, cocaine) addictions, pathological gamblers (PG) exhibit a loss of willpower to resist gambling: they persist in gambling despite the occurrence of negative consequences (e.g., loss of a significant relationship, job or career opportunity)

The somatic marker hypothesis: Modern economic theory ignores the influence of emotions on decision-making. Emerging neuroscience evidence suggests that sound and rational decision making, in fact, depends on prior accurate emotional processing. The somatic marker hypothesis provides a systems-level neuroanatomical and cognitive framework for decision-making and its influence by emotion. The key idea of this hypothesis is that decision-making is a process that is influenced by marker signals that arise in bioregulatory processes, including those that express themselves in emotions and feelings. This influence can occur at multiple levels of operation, some of which occur consciously, and some of which occur non-consciously. Here we review studies that confirm various predictions from the hypothesis, and propose a neural model for economic decision, in which emotions are a major factor in the interaction between environmental conditions and human decision processes, with these emotional systems providing valuable implicit or explicit knowledge for making fast and advantageous decisions.

Swift decisions are made by an individual when they are in a situation where they face the uncertainty about whether their decisions will lead to benefit or harm. The somatic marker hypothesis attempts to explain how decisions are made in the face of an uncertain outcome, this hypothesis’ central theological affirmation is that decisions are made on a neurobiological level and our emotions are a fundamental aide when decisions are made. This theory claims emotions contribute when an individual has to make a swift decision depending on their circumstances, this may be in the form of bodily states, which arise during the deliberation of future consequences and that mark different options of behavior as having the potential to be either advantageous or disadvantageous.

Decisions made in the face of an uncertain outcome : Imagine yourself as the owner of a large company, probably under the influence of high ratio, i.e. the conception of common sense tell you that the formal logic will provide the best possible solution to any problem that may occur.

Against this background that is under the influence of the rationalist it is argued that for best results should be kept out emotions. In other words, the rational procedure must get rid of passion.

The high ratio process is carried out by separation of the different assumptions for decision making, making a cost / benefit of each of them. For example, you as the owner of a large company consider the consequences of each option at different points and weigh the expected future losses and gains that they can carry.

Tasks (and the results) that demonstrate an advantage to insensitivity to negative feedback:

There’s no shortage of advice about how to react to negative feedback. Whether the critic is a boss or a co-worker, the same familiar guidance is consistently presented: Listen carefully, don’t get defensive, ask for time.

There’s nothing wrong with these three suggestions, of course. But at the moment when an unhappy colleague is telling you loudly that the project plan you created left out some obvious key components, or your boss is taking you to task for the stumbles you made in running an important meeting, it’s hard to recall these valid pointers, move them to the front of your mind, and actually act on them.

Here’s the point: unless you have spent a little time in advance thinking about what you’ll do the next time that—fairly or foully—someone delivers some unexpected criticism, all the good advice you’ve heard about how to react won’t come immediately to mind. Unprepared, you’re likely to be so caught up in the immediacy of the moment that you won’t remember these three simple, familiar prescriptions that allow us to keep control and to master (or at least, defuse) the situation. So they bear repeating, and thinking through now—so you’ll be prepared in the heat of the moment.

1. Listen carefully. First, there’s no question that not interrupting and listening carefully is the right thing to do when you’re getting negative feedback. That’s familiar counsel. What’s often left undiscussed is the question of what, exactly, is it that you should be listening for?

There are several good reasons to remain silent when you’re on the receiving end of negative feedback. Of course, you want to understand exactly what the criticism is before you react to it. But you need to be listening for other things, too.

Negative feedback is feedback on a lack of accomplishments, weaknesses, and incorrect responses. You are commenting on your student’s input that needs improvement.

Example: an aspect of positive psychology that was discussed during one of the keynote addresses was “flow”. Flow can be thought of as “the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity”