Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-pmsz9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T08:00:31.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of reward and punishment contingencies on decision-making in multiple sclerosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2006

HELGA NAGY ,
KRISZTINA BENCSIK ,
CECÍLIA RAJDA ,
KRISZTINA BENEDEK ,
SÁNDOR BENICZKY ,
SZABOLCS KÉRI  and
LÁSZLÓ VÉCSEI
HELGA NAGY
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical and Pharmaceutical Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
KRISZTINA BENCSIK
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical and Pharmaceutical Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
CECÍLIA RAJDA
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical and Pharmaceutical Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
KRISZTINA BENEDEK
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical and Pharmaceutical Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
SÁNDOR BENICZKY
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical and Pharmaceutical Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
SZABOLCS KÉRI
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical and Pharmaceutical Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
LÁSZLÓ VÉCSEI
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical and Pharmaceutical Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary Neurology Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) show cognitive and emotional disorders. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of contingency learning in decision-making in young, non-depressed, highly functioning patients with MS (n = 21) and in matched healthy controls (n = 30). Executive functions, attention, short-term memory, speed of information processing, and selection and retrieval of linguistic material were also investigated. Contingency learning based on the cumulative effect of reward and punishment was assessed using the Iowa Gambling Test (IGT). In the classic ABCD version of the IGT, advantageous decks are characterized by immediate small reward but even smaller future punishment. In the modified EFGH version, advantageous decks are characterized by immediate large punishment but even larger future reward. Results revealed that patients with MS showed significant dysfunctions in both versions of the IGT. Performances on neuropsychological tests sensitive to dorsolateral prefrontal functions did not predict and did not correlate with the IGT scores. These results suggest that patients with MS show impaired performances on tasks designed to assess decision-making in a situation requiring the evaluation of long-term outcomes regardless of gain or loss, and that this deficit is not a pure consequence of executive dysfunctions (JINS, 2006, 12, 559–565.)

Keywords

Iowa Gambling TestWisconsin Card Sorting TestExecutive functionsPrefrontal cortexDemyelinating diseasesEmotion

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , July 2006 , pp. 559 - 565
Copyright
© 2006 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bechara, A., Damasio, A.R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S.W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50, 7–15.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Anderson, S.W. (1998). Dissociation of working memory from decision making within the human prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 428–437.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Damasio, A.R., & Lee, G.P. (1999). Different contributions of the human amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 5473–5481.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123, 2189–2202.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Dolan, S., Denburg, N., Hindes, A., Anderson, S.W., & Nathan, P.E. (2001). Decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers. Neuropsychologia, 39, 376–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, R.H., Bakshi, R., Simon, J.H., Priore, R., Miller, C., & Munschauer, F. (2002). Frontal cortex atrophy predicts cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 14, 44–51.Google Scholar
Benedict, R.H., Carone, D.A., & Bakshi, R. (2004). Correlating brain atrophy with cognitive dysfunction, mood disturbances, and personality disorder in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neuroimaging, 14 (3 Suppl.), 36S–45S.Google Scholar
Bobholz, J.A. & Rao, S.M. (2003). Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: A review of recent developments. Current Opinion in Neurology, 16, 283–288.Google Scholar
Bruck, W. & Stadelmann, C. (2005). The spectrum of multiple sclerosis: New lessons from pathology. Current Opinion in Neurology, 18, 221–224.Google Scholar
Busemeyer, J.R. & Stout, J.C. (2002). A contribution of cognitive decision models to clinical assessment: Decomposing performance on the Bechara gambling task. Psychological Assessment, 14, 253–262.Google Scholar
Clark, L., Manes, F., Antoun, N., Sahakian, B.J., & Robbins, T.W. (2003). The contributions of lesion laterality and lesion volume to decision-making impairment following frontal lobe damage. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1474–1483.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Evans, C.E., Kemish, K., & Turnbull, O.H. (2004). Paradoxical effects of education on the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition, 54, 240–244.Google Scholar
Feinstein, A., O'Connor, P., Gray, T., & Feinstein, K. (1999). Pathological laughing and crying in multiple sclerosis: A preliminary report suggesting a role for the prefrontal cortex. Multiple Sclerosis, 5, 69–73.Google Scholar
Feinstein, A. (2004). The neuropsychiatry of multiple sclerosis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49, 157–163.Google Scholar
Fellows, L.K. & Farah, M.J. (2005). Different underlying impairments in decision-making following ventromedial and dorsolateral frontal lobe damage in humans. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 58–63.Google Scholar
Goldberg, E. & Bougakov, D. (2005). Neuropsychologic assessment of frontal lobe dysfunction. Psychiatry Clinics of North America, 28, 567–580.Google Scholar
Kleeberg, J., Bruggimann, L., Annoni, J.M., van Melle, G., Bogousslavsky, J., & Schluep, M. (2004). Altered decision-making in multiple sclerosis: A sign of impaired emotional reactivity? Annals of Neurology, 56, 787–795.Google Scholar
Kurtzke, J.F. (1983). Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology, 33, 1444–1452.Google Scholar
Lezak, D. (1995). Neuropsychological Assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manes, F., Sahakian, B., Clark, L., Rogers, R., Antoun, N., Aitken, M., & Robbins, T. (2002). Decision-making processes following damage to the prefrontal cortex. Brain, 125, 624–639.Google Scholar
Minden, S.L. & Schiffer, R.B. (1990). Affective disorders in multiple sclerosis. Review and recommendations for clinical research. Archives of Neurology, 47, 98–104.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Emerson, M.J., Witzki, A.H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T.D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.Google Scholar
Poser, C.M., Paty, D.W., Scheinberg, L., McDonald, W.I., Davis, F.A., Ebers, G.C., Johnson, K.P., Sibley, W.A., Silberberg, D.H., & Tourtellotte, WW. (1983). New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines for research protocols. Annals of Neurology, 13, 227–231.Google Scholar
Rogers, R.D. (2003). Neuropsychological investigations of the impulsive personality disorders. Psychological Medicine, 33, 1335–1340.Google Scholar
Sheehan, D.V., Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, K.H., Amorim, P., Janavs, J., Weiller, E., Hergueta, T., Baker, R., & Dunbar, G.C. (1998). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59 (Suppl. 20), 22–33.Google Scholar
Stablum, F., Meligrana, L., Sgaramella, T., Bortolon, F., & Toso, V. (2004). Endogenous task shift processes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Brain and Cognition, 56, 328–331.Google Scholar
Steer, R.A., Rissmiller, D.J., Ranieri, W.F., & Beck, A.T. (1993). Structure of the computer-assisted Beck anxiety inventory with psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 532–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavares, J.V., Drevets, W.C., & Sahakian, B.J. (2003). Cognition in mania and depression. Psychological Medicine, 33, 959–967.Google Scholar
Turnbull, O.H., Evans, C.E., Bunce, A., Carzolio, B., & O'connor, J. (2005). Emotion-based learning and central executive resources: An investigation of intuition and the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition, 57, 244–247.Google Scholar
Wishart, H. & Sharpe, D. (1997). Neuropsychological aspects of multiple sclerosis: A quantitative review. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 19, 810–824.Google Scholar
Yechiam, E., Busemeyer, J.R., Stout, J.C., & Bechara, A. (2005). Using cognitive models to map relations between neuropsychological disorders and human decision-making deficits. Psychological Science, 16, 973–978.Google Scholar
Zakzanis, K.K. (2000). Distinct neurocognitive profiles in multiple sclerosis subtypes. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 115–136.Google Scholar