Conceptual knowledge influences decision making differently in individuals with high or low cognitive flexibility: An ERP study

14Citations
Citations of this article
80Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: Studies using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) have distinguished between good and bad decision makers and have provided an explanation for deficits in decision making. Previous studies have demonstrated a link between Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) performance and IGT performance, but the results were not consistent and failed to explain why WCST performance can predict IGT performance. The present study aimed to demonstrate that WCST performance can predict IGT performance and to identify the cognitive component of the WCST that affects IGT performance using event-related potentials (ERPs). Methods: In this study, 39 healthy subjects (5 subjects were excluded) were divided into a high group and a low group based on their global score on the WCST. A single-choice version of the IGT was used to eliminate the impact of retrieval strategies on the choice evaluation process and interference due to uncorrelated decks. Differences in the underlying neural mechanisms and explicit knowledge between the two groups during the three stages of the decision-making process were described. Results: Based on the information processing perspective, we divided the decision-making process into three stages: choice evaluation, response selection, and feedback processing. The behavioral results showed that the highly cognitively flexible participants performed better on the IGT and acquired more knowledge of the task. The ERP results showed that during the choice evaluation stage, the P300 recorded from central and parietal regions when a bad deck appeared was larger in the high group participants than in the low group participants. During the response selection stage, the effect of choice type was significant only in the frontal region in the high group, with a larger effect for passing. During the feedback evaluation stage, a larger FRN was evoked for a loss than for a win in the high group, whereas the FRN effect was absent in the low group. Conclusion: Compared with the participants with low cognitive flexibility, the participants with high cognitive flexibility performed better on the IGT, acquired more knowledge of the task, and displayed more obvious somatic markers. The low group participants showed reduced working memory abilities during the choice evaluation stage. The appropriate somatic markers reflected by the DPN is formed only when conceptual knowledge is gained in the response selection stage. The absence of an FRN effect in the subjects who performed poorly on the WCST suggests a significant deficit in feedback learning and reward prediction.

Figures

  • Table 1. Summary of cognitive processes involved in the IGT and the corresponding ERP components.
  • Fig 1. Mean net score for the high and low groups across blocks.
  • Fig 2. Knowledge of the task. (A) The proportion of participants who achieved conceptual knowledge between groups and across blocks. (B) The average deck rating reported every three blocks by the high group. (C)The average deck ratings reported every three blocks by the low group.
  • Table 2. Participants’ knowledge stage across trials.
  • Fig 3. ERP results for the choice evaluation stage. (A) Grand average ERP wave forms after the onset of advantageous and disadvantageous decks for the two groups. (B) The mean amplitude of different regions for advantageous and disadvantageous decks in the two groups. (C) Topographical maps of the difference between disadvantageous and advantageous decks for the different wave forms in the two groups.
  • Fig 4. ERP results during the response selection stage. (A) Decision-preceding negativity amplitudes for different response types across groups. (B) Decision-preceding negativity amplitudes for different responses across regions. (C) Topographical maps of the difference between pass and play for the different wave forms in the two groups.
  • Fig 5. ERP results during the feedback evaluation stage. (A) The effects of valence on FRN amplitude across groups. (B) FRN amplitude on three electrodes for different valences and groups. (C) The effects of group and valence on FRN amplitude. (D) Topographical maps of the difference between loss and win (loss subtract win) for the different wave forms in the two groups.
  • Table 3. Correlation analysis of WCST performance and ERP components.

References Powered by Scopus

Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b

5936Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex

4654Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity

3241Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on decision making and cognitive flexibility in gambling disorder

53Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

High Cognitive Flexibility Learners Perform Better in Probabilistic Rule Learning

19Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The relationship between decision-making and intolerance to uncertainty, cognitive flexibility and happiness

13Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dong, X., Du, X., & Qi, B. (2016). Conceptual knowledge influences decision making differently in individuals with high or low cognitive flexibility: An ERP study. PLoS ONE, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158875

Readers over time

‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2505101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 36

77%

Researcher 7

15%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

9%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 25

60%

Neuroscience 10

24%

Social Sciences 4

10%

Medicine and Dentistry 3

7%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0