Neurological Sciences

, Volume 34, Issue 12, pp 2159–2166 | Cite as

Functional anatomy of outcome evaluation during Iowa Gambling Task performance in patients with Parkinson’s disease: an fMRI study

  • Tomáš Gescheidt
  • Radek Mareček
  • Michal Mikl
  • Kristína Czekóová
  • Tomáš Urbánek
  • Jiří Vaníček
  • Daniel J. Shaw
  • Martin BarešEmail author
Original Article


The aim of this study was to investigate the functional anatomy of decision-making during the Iowa Gambling Task in patients with Parkinson’s disease. We used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during a computerized version of IGT to compare 18 PD patients on dopaminergic medication in the ON state and 18 healthy control subjects. Our analyses focused on outcome evaluation following card selection, because we expected this aspect of decision-making to be impaired in PD patients. The PD patients exhibited lower activation of the left putamen than the control group as a reaction to penalty. Using psychophysiological interaction analysis, we identified decreased functional connectivity between the right globus pallidus internus and the left anterior cingulate gyrus in the PD group. In contrast, increased connectivity between these structures was observed after penalty in the control group. Our results suggest altered functioning of the basal ganglia and their connections with the cortical structures involved in the limbic loop (e.g., the limbic fronto-striatal circuit of the basal ganglia) during decision-making in PD patients. Differences in the response to loss could be associated with insufficient negative reinforcement after a loss in PD patients in the ON state in comparison to a healthy population.


Parkinson’s disease Iowa Gambling Task Decision-making Dopamine fMRI Psychophysiological interactions 



This work was supported by the project “CEITEC Central European Institute of Technology” (CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0068) from the European Regional Development Fund. The participation of T.U. was supported by a research project of the Czech Science Foundation, no. P407/12/2432. The participation of J.V. was supported by the European Regional Development Fund Project FNUSA-ICRC (No.CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0123).

Ethical standards

The study has been approved by appropriate ethics committee and has therefore been performed in accordance with ethical standards laid down in the 1964 declaration of Helsinki.

Supplementary material

10072_2013_1439_MOESM1_ESM.doc (30 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 30 kb)


  1. 1.
    Dunn BD, Dalgleish T, Lawrence AD (2006) The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical evaluation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 30:239–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pessiglione M, Seymour B, Flandin G et al (2006) Dopamine-dependent prediction errors underpin reward-seeking behaviour in humans. Nature 442(7106):1042–1045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poletti M, Cavedini P, Bonuccelli U (2011) Iowa Gambling Task in Parkinson’s disease. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 33(4):395–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Poletti M, Frosini D, Lucetti C et al (2010) Decision making in de novo Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 25(10):1432–1436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pagonabarraga J, García-Sánchez C, Llebaria G et al (2007) Controlled study of decision-making and cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 22(10):1430–1435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kobayakawa M, Koyama S, Mimura M, Kawamura M (2008) Decision making in Parkinson’s disease: analysis of behavioral and psychological patterns in the Iowa gambling task. Mov Disord 23(4):547–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mimura M, Oeda R, Kawamura M (2006) Impaired decision-making in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 12:169–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Czernecki V, Pillon B, Houeto JL et al (2002) Motivation, reward and Parkinson’s disease: influence of dopatherapy. Neuropsychologia 40(13):2257–2267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delazer M, Sinz H, Zamarian L et al (2009) Decision making under risk and under ambiguity in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia 47(8–9):1901–1908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibarretxe-Bilbao N, Junque C, Tolosa E et al (2009) Neuroanatomical correlates of impaired decision making and facial emotion recognition in early Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Neurosci 30(6):1162–1171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peretta JG, Pari G, Beninger RJ (2005) Effects of Parkinson’s disease on two putative nondeclarative learning tasks: probabilistic classification and gambling. Cogn Behav Neurol 18(4):185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Euteneuer F, Schaefer F, Stuermer R et al (2009) Dissociation of decision-making under ambiguity and decision-making under risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a neuropsychological and psychophysiological study. Neuropsychologia 47(13):2882–2890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rossi M, Gerschcovich ER, de Achaval D et al (2010) Decision-making in Parkinson’s disease patients with and without pathological gambling. Eur J Neurol 17(1):97–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poletti M, Bonucelli U (2012) Impulse control disorders in Parkinson’s disease: the role of personality and cognitive status. J Neurol 259(11):2269–2277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thiel A, Hilker R, Kessler J et al (2003) Activation of basal ganglia loops in idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: a PET study. J Neural Transm 110:1289–1301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gescheidt T, Czekóová K, Urbánek T et al (2012) Iowa Gambling Task in patients with early-onset Parkinson’s disease: strategy analysis. Neurol Sci 33(6):1329–1335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, Anderson SW (1994) Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition 50(1–3):7–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ernst M, Paulus MP (2005) Neurobiology of decision making: a selective review from a neurocognitive and clinical perspective. Biol Psychiatry 58(8):597–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li X, Lu ZL, D’Argembau A et al (2010) The Iowa Gambling Task in fMRI images. Hum Brain Mapp 31(3):410–423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bechara A (2004) Disturbances of emotion regulation after focal brain lesions. Int Rev Neurobiol 62:159–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eldridge LL, Knowlton BJ, Furmanski CS et al (2000) Remembering episodes: a selective role for the hippocampus during retrieval. Nat Neurosci 3(11):1149–1152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gleichgerrcht E, Ibáñez A, Roca M et al (2010) Decision-making congnition in neurodegenerative diseases. Nat Rev Neurol 6(11):611–623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Toplak ME, Sorge GB, Benoit A et al (2010) A review of associations between Iowa Gambling Task performance, executive functions and intelligence. Clin Psychol Rev 30:562–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ernst M, Bolla K, Mouratidis M, Contoreggi C et al (2002) Decision-making in a risk-taking task: a PET study. Neuropysychopharmacology 26:682–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clark L, Manes F, Antoun N et al (2003) The contribution of lesion laterality and lesion volume to decision-making impairment following frontal lobe damage. Neuropsychologia 41(11):1474–1483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ward CD, Gibb WR (1990) Research diagnostic criteria for Parkinson’s disease. Adv Neurol 53:245–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fahn S, Elton RL, and members of the UPDRS Development Committee (1987) Unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Calne DB, Goldstein M (eds) Recent developments in Parkinson’s disease. Macmillan Healthcare Information, Florham Park, NJ pp 153–163Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoehn M, Yahr M (1967) Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 17:427–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tomlinson CL, Stowe R, Patel S et al (2010) Systematic review of levodopa dose Equivalency reporting in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 25(15):2649–2653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Montgomery SA, Asberg M (1979) A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 134(4):382–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lesieur HR, Blume SB (1987) The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathologic gamblers. Am J Psychiatry 144(9):1184–1188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Christenson GA, Faber RJ, de Zwaan M et al (1994) Compulsive buying: descriptive characteristics and psychiatric comorbidity. J Clin Psychiatry 55:5–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fukui H, Murai T, Fukuyama H et al (2005) Functional activity related to risk anticipation during performance of the Iowa gambling task. Neuroimage 24(1):253–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Buelow MT, Suhr JA (2009) Construct validity of the Iowa Gambling Task. Neuropsychol Rev 19(1):102–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hayasaka S, Nichols TE (2003) Validating cluster size inference: random field and permutation methods. Neuroimage 20(4):2343–2356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hayasaka S, Phan KL, Liberzon I et al (2004) Nonstationary cluster-size inference with random field and permutation methods. Neuroimage 22(2):676–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Friston KJ, Buechel C, Fink GR et al (1997) Psychophysiological and modulatory interactions in neuroimaging. Neuroimage 6(3):218–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Christakau A, Brammer M, Giampietro V et al (2009) Right ventromedial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices mediate adaptive decisions under ambiguity by integrating choice utility and outcome evaluation. J Neurosci 29(35):11020–11028CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomáš Gescheidt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Radek Mareček
    • 3
  • Michal Mikl
    • 3
  • Kristína Czekóová
    • 1
  • Tomáš Urbánek
    • 4
  • Jiří Vaníček
    • 5
    • 6
  • Daniel J. Shaw
    • 1
  • Martin Bareš
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.CEITEC-Central European Institute of Technology, Behavioral and Social Neuroscience Research GroupMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyMedical Faculty Masaryk University and St. Anne’s University HospitalBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.CEITEC-Central European Institute of Technology, Molecular and Functional Imaging Research GroupMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  4. 4.Institute of PsychologyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  5. 5.Department of Medical ImagingMedical Faculty Masaryk University and St. Anne’s University HospitalBrnoCzech Republic
  6. 6.International Clinical Research Center (ICRC)St. Anne’s University HospitalBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations