Comparisons in terms of choice behavior and betting behavior between MS patients and controls in the CGT.

<p>Msec = milliseconds. Values are means ± standard deviation (SD). P-values reflect non parametric comparisons.</p>*<p>reflects significant difference. After correction for type 1 error, alpha was set at.025 for choice behavior (2 Items) and for betting behavior (idem).</p

Model of choice integrating the effects of disappointment and risk in addition to the maximization of expected values.

<p>Negative coefficients reflect minimization of disappointment or risk. Model A integrates the effects of anticipating disappointment (d) in addition to the maximization of expected values (EV). MS patients did not minimize d. Model B integrates the effects of risk in addition to the maximization of expected values (e). Healthy controls were risk neutral while MS patients were risk averse.</p

Demographics, clinical neuropsychological characteristics of MS patients and controls.

<p>Values are mean ± standard deviation (SD), excepted for ¹where values are n. ²Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological tests (BRB-N): Selective Reminding Test (SRT), 10/36 Spatial Recall Test (10/36), Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), Word List Generation (WLG). SOC: Stockings of Cambridge; HAD: Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale.</p

Description of the two gambling tasks.

<p>A) Wheel of Fortune (WOF): the subject (with SCR recorded) has to choose between two possible lotteries with different risk and earning possibilities. The subject was asked to choose one of the two wheels by pressing a left or a right button (choice period). A spinning arrow then appeared at the center of the wheel, spins for a variable duration (wait period), and stopped revealing the outcome(s) (feedback period). In the partial feedback condition (30 trials) the subject does not know the outcome of the other lottery; in the complete feedback condition (30 trials) both outcomes are presented. At the end of each trial, subjects had to indicate their affective state using a rating scale. B) Cambridge gambling task (CGT): the subject has to bet points on a choice associated with a given level of risk. Trials are run in blocks (two sets of four blocks), each containing nine trials. A row of ten boxes (red or blue, with a ratio varying across trials) is presented at the top of the screen. Participants are told that a yellow token was hidden in one of the boxes. They then have to guess whether it is in a red or blue box (color). Then they decide how many of their points they wanted to gamble on their choice (point choice) by pressing when they choose: available bets (5, 25, 75, 95 and total) are presented on the right of the screen in a ascending or descending sequence. Then feedback is given about gain or loss and total ongoing fortune (left).</p

Emotional processing in the WOF task.

<p>A. Diminished negative emotional ratings in RRMS patients. Mean emotional ratings were plotted for <i>disappointment</i> (comparison of an obtained outcome with a more favorable unobtained outcome in partial feedback condition), <i>regret</i> (comparison of an obtained outcome with a more favorable unobtained outcome in complete feedback condition), <i>rejoy</i> (comparison of an obtained outcome with a less favorable unobtained outcome in partial feedback condition) and <i>relief</i> (comparison of an obtained outcome with a less favorable unobtained outcome in complete feedback condition). Wilcoxon signed rank tests between groups for disappointment and regret: disappointment (z = −2.45, p = 0.01) and regret (z = −2.38, p = 0.02). B. Comparable emotional arousal in SCRs for RRMS patients and controls. Mean SCRs during feedback plotted for disappointment, regret, rejoy and relief. No statistical differences between groups.</p

Quality of DM in the Cambridge Gambling Task.

<p>Comparisons in terms of choice behavior between MS patients and controls in the CGT (% of best choices).</p

Choice behavior in the Wheels of Fortune task for MS patients and healthy controls (regression analyses, panel logit with individual random effect).

<p>A. Model of choice integrating the effects of anticipating disappointment (d) and regret (r) in addition to the maximization of expected values (EV). Both MS patients and controls chose anticipating r and maximizing EV. MS patients did not choose anticipating d.</p><p>B. Model of choice integrating the effects of risk in addition to the maximization of expected values (e). Healthy controls were risk neutral while MS patients were risk averse.</p

Graphs showing the respective significance in each ROI for univariate analysis (loop), bivariate analysis (straight line) and multivariate analysis (central circle).

<p>Red color indicates p≤0.01 and yellow color indicates p≤0.05. Hypothesis 3.</p

Demographics, HIV characteristics and neuropsychological results (raw scores and indexes) of MND+ and MND− patients.

<p>Demographics, HIV characteristics and neuropsychological results (raw scores and indexes) of MND+ and MND− patients.</p

Neuropsychological tests. References are reported in Data

<p>Neuropsychological tests. References are reported in Data</p