In the paper we report two tasks: a repeated trust game and a raffle task. **Repeated trust game** - analyses script: "UWD RTG analysis script.R" - data: RTG.UWD.script.xlsx explainer of the trust game data file: - period = round number (1- 52) - ID = subject identifier - trustee: good = generous trustee; bad = selfish trustee - TotalProfit = accumulated profit over rounds - trustworthiness = trustworthiness ratings in round 51 & 52 - InvestmentTotal = investment (1-10) - group: controls = healthy control subject; UW = BLA-damaged subject **Raffle task** - analyses script: "raffle task analyses.R" and "Raffle task control questions.R" - data: RaffleTask.xlsx and RaffleTaskControlQuestions.xlsx explainer of the raffle task data file: - period = round number (1- 52) - ID = subject identifier - InvestmentTotal = amount of bought tickets (1-10) - wins = amount of money won - group: BLA-damaged group, controls - box: positive = box where subjects mostly won money; negative = box where subjects mostly lost money explainer of the raffle task control questions data file: - ID = subject identifier - group: BLA-damaged group, controls - Q1correct: first control question correct (see manuscript) 1 = correct; 0 = incorrect - CorrectBoxQ2: second control question correct - 1 = correct; 0 = incorrect - CorrectBoxQ3: third control question correct - 1 = correct; 0 = incorrect **RTG reviewer comment** One of the reviewers of the paper asked whether the BLA-damaged subjects' investments in the repeated trust game are associated with the previous round's back-transfers (thus investment round N and back-transfer round N-1) or the previous round's back-transfers from the same trustee (thus f.e. investment round N generous trustee and back-transfer round N-1 generous trustee). A positive association between the investment and the previous round’s back-transfer from the same trustee would reflect experiential learning as the subject incorporates the previous feedback from the trustee to guide their behaviour. A positive association between the investment and the previous round’s back-transfer would reflect a maladaptive strategy in the game and would not result in learning about the outcome differences of the two trustees. Even though these are highly interesting suggestions, these analyses did not provide new insights into the BLA-damaged subjects’ behavioural strategies in the repeated trust game and we opted to not include them in the manuscript. However, for the interested reader we have uploaded the analyses script (RTG reviewer comment.R), accompanying data file (RTG.UWD.script.backtransfers.xlsx), results (RTG-reviewer-comment.html), and a summary of the results (RTG reviewer comment analyses summary.docx).