It is a hallmark of a good model to make accurate a priori predictions to new conditions (Busemeyer & Wang, 2000). This study compared 8 decision learning models with respect to their generalizability. Participants performed 2 tasks (the Iowa Gambling Task and the Soochow Gambling Task), and each model made a priori predictions by estimating the parameters for each participant from 1 task and using those same parameters to predict on the other task. Three methods were used to evaluate the (...) models at the individual level of analysis. The first method used a post hoc fit criterion, the second method used a generalization criterion for short‐term predictions, and the third method again used a generalization criterion for long‐term predictions. The results suggest that the models with the prospect utility function can make generalizable predictions to new conditions, and different learning models are needed for making short‐versus long‐term predictions on simple gambling tasks. (shrink)

The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is widely used to study decision‐making within healthy and psychiatric populations. However, the complexity of the IGT makes it difficult to attribute variation in performance to specific cognitive processes. Several cognitive models have been proposed for the IGT in an effort to address this problem, but currently no single model shows optimal performance for both short‐ and long‐term prediction accuracy and parameter recovery. Here, we propose the Outcome‐Representation Learning (ORL) model, a novel model that provides (...) the best compromise between competing models. We test the performance of the ORL model on 393 subjects' data collected across multiple research sites, and we show that the ORL reveals distinct patterns of decision‐making in substance‐using populations. Our work highlights the importance of using multiple model comparison metrics to make valid inference with cognitive models and sheds light on learning mechanisms that play a role in underweighting of rare events. (shrink)

Background: An association between gaming disorder and the symptoms of common mental disorders is unraveled yet. In this preregistered study, we quantitatively synthesized reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of GD scales to examine association between GD and other constructs.Methods: Five representative GD instruments were chosen based on recommendations by the previous systematic review study to conduct correlation meta-analyses and reliability generalization. A systematic literature search was conducted through Pubmed, Proquest, Embase, and Google Scholar to identify studies that reported information on (...) either reliability or correlation with related variables. 2,124 studies were full-text assessed as of October 2020, and 184 were quantitatively synthesized. Conventional Hedges two-level meta-analytic method was utilized.Results: The result of reliability generalization reported a mean coefficient alpha of 0.86 and a mean test-retest estimate of 0.86. Estimated effect sizes of correlation between GD and the variables were as follows: 0.33 with depression, 0.29 with anxiety, 0.30 with aggression, –0.22 with quality of life, 0.29 with loneliness, 0.56 with internet addiction, and 0.40 with game playtime, respectively. The result of moderator analyses, funnel and forest plots, and publication bias analyses were also presented.Discussion and Conclusion: All five GD instruments have good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Relatively few studies reported the test-retest reliability. The result of correlation meta-analysis revealed that GD scores were only moderately associated with game playtime. Common psychological problems such as depression and anxiety were found to have a slightly smaller association with GD than the gaming behavior. GD scores were strongly correlated with internet addiction. Further studies should adopt a rigorous methodological procedure to unravel the bidirectional relationship between GD and other psychopathologies.Limitations: The current study did not include gray literature. The representativeness of the five tools included in the current study could be questioned. High heterogeneity is another limitation of the study.Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42020219781]. (shrink)