Stop Saying That It Is Wrong! Psychophysiological, Cognitive, and Metacognitive Markers of Children’s Sensitivity to Punishment

Abstract

Neurodevelopmental evidence suggests that children’s main decision-making strategy is to avoid options likely to induce punishment. However, the cognitive and affective factors contributing to children’s avoidance to high punishment frequency remain unknown. The present study explored psychophysiological, cognitive, and metacognitive processes associated with sensitivity to punishment frequency. We evaluated 54 participants (between 8 and 15 years old) with a modified Iowa Gambling Task for children (IGT-C) which included options with varying long-term profit and punishment frequencies. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) were recorded during this task. Additionally, we assessed IGT-C metacognitive knowledge, fluid intelligence, and executive functions. Participants exhibited behavioral avoidance and high anticipatory SCRs to options with high frequency of punishment. Moreover, age, IGT-C metacognitive knowledge, and inhibitory control were associated with individual differences in sensitivity to punishment frequency. Our results suggest that children’s preference for infrequently punished decisions is partially explained by psychophysiological signals as well as task complexity and development of cognitive control.

Neural markers of social and monetary rewards in children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…The task included two versions with two decks each. The IGT-C has been validated previously in typically developing children through behavioral and psychophysiological measures 26 . Figure 1A illustrates an example of a trial sequence.…”

“…The number of cards selected in each deck and version were taken as behavioral measures to compare differences between groups regarding task understanding and attention. Given that children’s main strategy in the IGT is to avoid both the DD and options with high-loss frequency 26 37 , we contrasted the fERN responses between wins and losses following the selection of these options.…”

“…We tested these hypotheses using high-density electroencephalography (hdEEG) while ADHD, ASD, and control participants performed a MDM task and observed a SDM paradigm. For the MDM, we employed a children’s version of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) 26 in which the participants win and lose money by selecting cards from high- and low-risk options. For the SDM, we used a modified version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game (PDG) 27 .…”

A scoping review on self-regulation and reward processing measured with gambling tasks: Evidence from the general youth population

“…Specifically, the two types of gambling tasks administered as card games were the Children’s Gambling Task (n = 2) [ 1 ] and Preschool Gambling Task (PGT; n = 1) [ 25 ], which are age-appropriate versions of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) [ 6 ]. The latter is also the measure that was most frequently used (n = 5), followed by the Hungry Donkey Task (HDT; n = 3) [ 26 ], the CGT (n = 2), the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; n = 2) [ 5 ] and the Bubblegum Analogue Risk Task for children (BART-C; n = 2) [ 27 , 28 ], and the IGT for children (n = 1) [ 29 ], which are other age-appropriate versions of the BART and the IGT, respectively. Detailed descriptions for each gambling task and their different versions are reported in S3B Table in S1 File .…”

“…Finally, overall executive functioning, which was treated as a single measure including attention, inhibition and working memory, was assessed as a combined single factor solution including scores for the Flanker Task, the List Sorting Working Memory Test (both available on the NIH Toolbox: https://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/nih-toolbox/intro-to-nih-toolbox/cognition ), and the Go/No-go Test; and as one single assessment called the Hearts and Flowers task [ 52 ]. However, given that Smith et al (2012) used the part B of the Trail Making Test as a measure of set shifting, working memory, and inhibition combined [ 53 ] (compared to another study that described it as a measure of set-shifting only [ 29 ]; see S4 Table in S1 File ), this measure was also deemed to be assessing overall executive functioning.…”