Limits...
Post learning sleep improves cognitive-emotional decision-making: evidence for a 'deck B sleep effect' in the Iowa Gambling Task.

Seeley CJ, Beninger RJ, Smith CT - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: The learners who had a period of sleep (sleep and sleep/wake control conditions) between sessions showed significantly larger reduction in choices from deck B and increase in choices from good decks compared to learners that had intervening wake.Our results are the first to show that post-learning sleep can improve performance on a complex decision-making task such as the IGT.These results provide new insights into IGT learning and have important implications for understanding the neural mechanisms of "sleeping on" a decision.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Neuroscience, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

ABSTRACT
The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is widely used to assess real life decision-making impairment in a wide variety of clinical populations. Our study evaluated how IGT learning occurs across two sessions, and whether a period of intervening sleep between sessions can enhance learning. Furthermore, we investigate whether pre-sleep learning is necessary for this improvement. A 200-trial version of the IGT was administered at two sessions separated by wake, sleep or sleep and wake (time-of-day control). Participants were categorized as learners and non-learners based on initial performance in session one. In session one, participants initially preferred the high-frequency reward decks B and D, however, a subset of learners decreased choice from negative expected value 'bad' deck B and increased choices towards with a positive expected value 'good' decks (decks C and D). The learners who had a period of sleep (sleep and sleep/wake control conditions) between sessions showed significantly larger reduction in choices from deck B and increase in choices from good decks compared to learners that had intervening wake. Our results are the first to show that post-learning sleep can improve performance on a complex decision-making task such as the IGT. These results provide new insights into IGT learning and have important implications for understanding the neural mechanisms of "sleeping on" a decision.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Proportion of deck choices from those categorized as learners and non-learners during session one.Session 1 proportion (± SEM) of draws in blocks of 50 trials from (A) positive expected value (EV) combined (C and D) for learners (n = 30) and non-learners (n = 62) as well as each individual deck (A, B, C, D) in (B) Learners and (C) Non-learners separately. All Learners reached 60% choices from good decks in the last 100 trials, the cut-off criterion is represented by the grey dotted line (A). Learners significantly improved choices from positive EV decks from block 1 to block 2, block 2 to block 3 and block 3 to block 4, with no significant improvement in the Non-Learners. Supported by a significant group by block interaction in a two-way analysis of variance, followed by a significant simple effects of block in Learners and significant Tukey tests of multiple comparison. The simple effects of block in Non-learners was non-significant. Learners appeared to reduce preference for deck B and increase choices from deck C (B), while Non-learners did not appear to reduce deck B preference (C). Solid lines represent low-frequency penalty decks and dashed lines represent high-frequency penalty decks; blue lines represent negative EV decks and orange lines represent positive EV decks.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4237319&req=5

pone-0112056-g003: Proportion of deck choices from those categorized as learners and non-learners during session one.Session 1 proportion (± SEM) of draws in blocks of 50 trials from (A) positive expected value (EV) combined (C and D) for learners (n = 30) and non-learners (n = 62) as well as each individual deck (A, B, C, D) in (B) Learners and (C) Non-learners separately. All Learners reached 60% choices from good decks in the last 100 trials, the cut-off criterion is represented by the grey dotted line (A). Learners significantly improved choices from positive EV decks from block 1 to block 2, block 2 to block 3 and block 3 to block 4, with no significant improvement in the Non-Learners. Supported by a significant group by block interaction in a two-way analysis of variance, followed by a significant simple effects of block in Learners and significant Tukey tests of multiple comparison. The simple effects of block in Non-learners was non-significant. Learners appeared to reduce preference for deck B and increase choices from deck C (B), while Non-learners did not appear to reduce deck B preference (C). Solid lines represent low-frequency penalty decks and dashed lines represent high-frequency penalty decks; blue lines represent negative EV decks and orange lines represent positive EV decks.

Mentions: Individuals were categorized into learners (n = 30) and non-learners (n = 62) based on their performance in the last half of session one (total draws chosen from deck C and D combined in trials 101–200). Using individual observations, and a previously established criterion [27], [35] we categorized learners and non-learners as those who reached equal or more than 60% and less than 60% choices from combined good decks (decks C and D), respectively. A significant two-way block (1, 2, 3, 4) x group (learners, non-learners) ANOVA confirmed group differences (F[2.7, 239.9]  = 37.6, p<0.001). In the learners, a repeated measures ANOVA revealed that choices from good decks significantly improved (F[2.4, 68.9]  = 36.1, p<0.001) with no significant improvement in non-learners (F[2.6, 160.7]  = 1.1, p = 0.34). Within learners paired t-tests revealed choices from good decks significantly increased from block 1 to block 2 (t[29]  = −3.9, p<0.001), block 2 to block 3 (t[29]  = −3.8, p<0.001), and block 3 to block 4 (t[29]  = −2.7, p<0.05). Furthermore, Figure 3B suggests that learners decreased preferences for deck B, choosing predominately from good decks C and D in the last 50 trials. Figure 3C suggests that non-learners prefer deck B and D throughout the full 200 trials.


Post learning sleep improves cognitive-emotional decision-making: evidence for a 'deck B sleep effect' in the Iowa Gambling Task.

Seeley CJ, Beninger RJ, Smith CT - PLoS ONE (2014)

Proportion of deck choices from those categorized as learners and non-learners during session one.Session 1 proportion (± SEM) of draws in blocks of 50 trials from (A) positive expected value (EV) combined (C and D) for learners (n = 30) and non-learners (n = 62) as well as each individual deck (A, B, C, D) in (B) Learners and (C) Non-learners separately. All Learners reached 60% choices from good decks in the last 100 trials, the cut-off criterion is represented by the grey dotted line (A). Learners significantly improved choices from positive EV decks from block 1 to block 2, block 2 to block 3 and block 3 to block 4, with no significant improvement in the Non-Learners. Supported by a significant group by block interaction in a two-way analysis of variance, followed by a significant simple effects of block in Learners and significant Tukey tests of multiple comparison. The simple effects of block in Non-learners was non-significant. Learners appeared to reduce preference for deck B and increase choices from deck C (B), while Non-learners did not appear to reduce deck B preference (C). Solid lines represent low-frequency penalty decks and dashed lines represent high-frequency penalty decks; blue lines represent negative EV decks and orange lines represent positive EV decks.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4237319&req=5

pone-0112056-g003: Proportion of deck choices from those categorized as learners and non-learners during session one.Session 1 proportion (± SEM) of draws in blocks of 50 trials from (A) positive expected value (EV) combined (C and D) for learners (n = 30) and non-learners (n = 62) as well as each individual deck (A, B, C, D) in (B) Learners and (C) Non-learners separately. All Learners reached 60% choices from good decks in the last 100 trials, the cut-off criterion is represented by the grey dotted line (A). Learners significantly improved choices from positive EV decks from block 1 to block 2, block 2 to block 3 and block 3 to block 4, with no significant improvement in the Non-Learners. Supported by a significant group by block interaction in a two-way analysis of variance, followed by a significant simple effects of block in Learners and significant Tukey tests of multiple comparison. The simple effects of block in Non-learners was non-significant. Learners appeared to reduce preference for deck B and increase choices from deck C (B), while Non-learners did not appear to reduce deck B preference (C). Solid lines represent low-frequency penalty decks and dashed lines represent high-frequency penalty decks; blue lines represent negative EV decks and orange lines represent positive EV decks.
Mentions: Individuals were categorized into learners (n = 30) and non-learners (n = 62) based on their performance in the last half of session one (total draws chosen from deck C and D combined in trials 101–200). Using individual observations, and a previously established criterion [27], [35] we categorized learners and non-learners as those who reached equal or more than 60% and less than 60% choices from combined good decks (decks C and D), respectively. A significant two-way block (1, 2, 3, 4) x group (learners, non-learners) ANOVA confirmed group differences (F[2.7, 239.9]  = 37.6, p<0.001). In the learners, a repeated measures ANOVA revealed that choices from good decks significantly improved (F[2.4, 68.9]  = 36.1, p<0.001) with no significant improvement in non-learners (F[2.6, 160.7]  = 1.1, p = 0.34). Within learners paired t-tests revealed choices from good decks significantly increased from block 1 to block 2 (t[29]  = −3.9, p<0.001), block 2 to block 3 (t[29]  = −3.8, p<0.001), and block 3 to block 4 (t[29]  = −2.7, p<0.05). Furthermore, Figure 3B suggests that learners decreased preferences for deck B, choosing predominately from good decks C and D in the last 50 trials. Figure 3C suggests that non-learners prefer deck B and D throughout the full 200 trials.

Bottom Line: The learners who had a period of sleep (sleep and sleep/wake control conditions) between sessions showed significantly larger reduction in choices from deck B and increase in choices from good decks compared to learners that had intervening wake.Our results are the first to show that post-learning sleep can improve performance on a complex decision-making task such as the IGT.These results provide new insights into IGT learning and have important implications for understanding the neural mechanisms of "sleeping on" a decision.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Neuroscience, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

ABSTRACT
The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is widely used to assess real life decision-making impairment in a wide variety of clinical populations. Our study evaluated how IGT learning occurs across two sessions, and whether a period of intervening sleep between sessions can enhance learning. Furthermore, we investigate whether pre-sleep learning is necessary for this improvement. A 200-trial version of the IGT was administered at two sessions separated by wake, sleep or sleep and wake (time-of-day control). Participants were categorized as learners and non-learners based on initial performance in session one. In session one, participants initially preferred the high-frequency reward decks B and D, however, a subset of learners decreased choice from negative expected value 'bad' deck B and increased choices towards with a positive expected value 'good' decks (decks C and D). The learners who had a period of sleep (sleep and sleep/wake control conditions) between sessions showed significantly larger reduction in choices from deck B and increase in choices from good decks compared to learners that had intervening wake. Our results are the first to show that post-learning sleep can improve performance on a complex decision-making task such as the IGT. These results provide new insights into IGT learning and have important implications for understanding the neural mechanisms of "sleeping on" a decision.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus