Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:53:52.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduced autonomic responsiveness to gambling task losses in Huntington's disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2004

MEGHAN C. CAMPBELL ,
JULIE C. STOUT  and
PETER R. FINN
MEGHAN C. CAMPBELL
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
JULIE C. STOUT
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
PETER R. FINN
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examined the possible role of autonomic activity in Huntington's disease (HD) during a risky decision making task. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) of 15 HD participants and 16 healthy controls were measured while they performed a computerized version of the Simulated Gambling Task (SGT). The results replicated our previous finding of a performance decrement in HD, and showed that HD was associated with an altered pattern of SCRs during the risky decision task. Specifically, the healthy controls produced increased SCRs following selections from the disadvantageous decks and following losing selections. In contrast, the SCRs of the HD group did not differentiate between wins and losses. These findings indicate a reduced impact of loss on decision-making processes under risky conditions in HD. (JINS, 2004, 10, 239–245.)

Keywords

Somatic markersSkin conductance responsesDecision-making
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , March 2004 , pp. 239 - 245
Copyright
© 2004 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.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, G.E., DeLong, M.R., & Strick, P.L. (1986). Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 9, 357–381.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Damasio, A.R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S.W. (1995). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50, 3–11.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., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Anderson, S. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle 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., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A.R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275, 1293–1295.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Dolan, S., & Hindes, A. (2002). Decision-making and addiction (part II): Myopia for the future or hypersensitivity to reward. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1690–1705.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A.R. (2000). Poor judgement in spite of high intellect: Neurological evidence for emotional intelligence. In R. Bar-On (Ed.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 192–214). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A.R. (1996). Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 6, 215–225.Google Scholar
Brandt, J. & Butters, N. (1996). Neuropsychological characteristics of Huntington's disease. In I. Grant & K.M. Adams (Eds.), Neuropsychological assessment of neuropsychiatric disorders (pp. 312–341). New York: Oxford University Press.
Butters, N., Heindel, W.C., & Salmon, D.P. (1990). Dissociation of implicit memory in dementia: Neurological implications. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 359–366.Google Scholar
Coblentz, J.M., Mattis, S., Zingesser, L., Kasoff, S.S., Wisniewski, H.M., & Katzman, R. (1973). Dementia rating scale. Archives of Neurology, 29, 299–308.Google Scholar
Codispoti, M., Bradley, M.M., & Lang, P.J. (2001). Affective reactions to briefly presented pictures. Psychophysiology, 38, 474–478.Google Scholar
Damasio, A.R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Avon Books, Inc.
Damasio, A.R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London (Biol), 1413–1420.Google Scholar
Dawson, M.E., Filion, D.L., & Schell, A.M. (1989). Is elicitation of the autonomic orienting response associated with allocation of processing resources? Psychophysiology, 26, 560–572.Google Scholar
Esteves, F., Parra, C., Dimberg, U., & Ohman, A. (1994). Nonconcious associative learning: Pavlovian conditioning of skin conductance responses to masked fear-relevant facial stimuli. Psychophysiology, 31, 375–385.Google Scholar
Filion, D.L., Dawson, M.E., Schell, A.M., & Hazlett, E.A. (1991). The relationship between skin conductance orienting and the allocation of processing resources. Psychophysiology, 28, 410–424.Google Scholar
Finn, P.R., Justus, A., Mazas, C., Rorick, L., & Steinmetz, J.E. (2001). Constraint, alcoholism, and electrodermal response in aversive classical conditioning and mismatch novelty paradigms. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 36, 154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, R.D. & Blevings, G. (1975). Defensive responses to phobic stimuli. Biological Psychology, 3, 1–13.Google Scholar
Iacono, W.G., Roshi, D., & LaCoste, D. (1987). Electrodermal activity in patients with Huntington's disease and their progeny. Psychophysiology, 24, 522–527.Google Scholar
Lawson, E.A. (1981). Skin conductance responses in Huntington's chorea progeny. Psychophysiology, 18, 32–34.Google Scholar
Marder, K., Zhao, H., Myers, R.H., Cudkowicz, M., Kayson, E., Kieburtz, K., Orme, C., Paulsen, J., Penney, J.B., Siemers, E., Shoulson, I., and the Huntington Study Group (2000). Rate of functional decline in Huntington's disease. Neurology, 54(2), 452–458.Google Scholar
Mattis, S. (1988). Dementia Rating Scale: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
O'Doherty, J., Kringelbach, M.L., Rolls, E.T., Hornak, J., & Andrews, C. (2001). Abstract reward and punishment representations in the human orbitofrontal cortex. Neuroscience, 4, 95–102.Google Scholar
Ohman, A. & Soares, J.J. (1993). On the automatic nature of phobic fear: Conditioned electrodermal responses to masked fear-relevant stimuli. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 121–132.Google Scholar
Stout, J.C., Rodawalt, W.C., & Siemers, E.R. (2001). Risky decision making in Huntington's disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 7, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomb, I., Hauser, M., Deldin, P., & Caramazza, A. (2002). Do somatic markers mediate decisions on the gambling task. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 1103–1104.Google Scholar
Tranel, D., Bechara, A., & Damasio, A.R. (2000). Decision making and the somatic marker hypothesis. In M.S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 1047–1061). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Verfaellie, M., Bauer, R.M., & Bowers, D. (1991). Autonomic and behavioral evidence of implicit memory in amnesia. Brain and Cognition, 15, 10–25.Google Scholar