The orbitofrontal cortex, real-world decision making, and normal aging

Abstract

The present series of three studies aims at investigating the hypothesis that some seemingly normal older persons have deficits in reasoning and decision making due to dysfunction in a neural system which includes the ventromedial prefrontal cortices. This hypothesis is relevant to the comprehensive study of aging, and also addresses the question of why so many older adults fall prey to fraud. To our knowledge, this work represents the first of its kind to begin to identify, from an individual-differences perspective, the behavioral, psychophysiological, and consumer correlates of defective decision making among healthy older adults. Our findings, in a cross-sectional sample of community-dwelling participants, demonstrate that a sizeable subset of older adults (approximately 35-40%) perform disadvantageously on a laboratory measure of decision making that closely mimics everyday life, by the manner in which it factors in reward, punishment, risk, and ambiguity. These same poor decision makers display defective autonomic responses (or somatic markers), reminiscent of that previously established in patients with acquired prefrontal lesions. Finally, we present data demonstrating that poor decision makers are more likely to fall prey to deceptive advertising, suggesting compromise of real-world judgment and decision-making abilities.

FIGURE 1

Decision-making performance on the IGT in patients with acquired damage to VMPC and demographically matched normal comparisons participants, graphed as a function of Trial Block (±SEM, standard error of the mean).

FIGURE 2

Decision-making performance on the IGT in Younger and Older participants, graphed as a function of Trial Block (±SEM).

FIGURE 3

Decision-making performance on the IGT in Older-Unimpaired participants and Older-Impaired participants, graphed as a function of Trial Block (±SEM).

FIGURE 4

Mean (±SEM) anticipatory SCRs in microSiemens (µS) as measured during the IGT. Data are presented by Group (Older-Unimpaired versus Older-Impaired) and by Deck Type (Good versus Bad).

FIGURE 5

Mean comprehension of claims response. Data are presented by Group (Older-Unimpaired versus Older-Impaired versus Younger) and by Advertisement Version (Full Disclosure versus Limited Disclosure).

FIGURE 6

Mean purchase intentions response. Data are presented by Group (Older-Unimpaired versus Older-Impaired versus Younger) and by advertisement version (Full Disclosure versus Limited Disclosure).