A score below 0 signified that subjects adopted an overall disadvantageous strategy (more card selections in decks A and B), while a score above 0 implied a more advantageous deck preference (more card selections in decks C and D).
Some normal subjects preferred deck B to the good final-outcome decks C or D. This preference had not been apparent in studies that used the sum of decks A and B [21].
Questionnaire data confirmed that participants preferred deck C to deck A (t (23) = -2.62, p <.05 (two-tailed)), and their preference for deck B almost matched that for D at the end of the first stage (t (23) = 0.06, p =.95 (two-tailed)).
The learning state curve demonstrated that participants less shifted their preference from deck B (disadvantageous deck) to deck D (advantageous deck).
Moreover, participants cannot suppress their preference for deck B under the uncertain condition, even during the second stage of the game.
Additionally, Chiu and Lin [ 32] utilize a modified version of IGT to demonstrate that subjects' preference to deck C is also due to gain-loss frequency, not EV.
In contrast, based on the prediction of gain-loss frequency, participants should have roughly equal preferences for decks A and C.
After completing the two-stage game, subjects were required to recollect the number of trials they chose for each deck, thereby recording their preference on a conscious level.
Following 20 trials of the game, participants began shifting their preference to deck C. According to the suggestion of Damasio, participants seemed to identify the future consequences of each deck earlier than in the original IGT.
The participants shifted their preference from deck A to deck C at the beginning of the AACC version of IGT and entered the steady state before the end of stage 1.
