Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology · 2023
Priming effects of a slot machine game and amphetamine on probabilistic risk-taking in people with gambling disorder and healthy controls.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zack Martin, Lobo Daniela, Biback Candice, Fang Tim, Smart Kelly, Tatone Daniel, Kalia Aditi, Digiacomo Daniel, Kennedy James L
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The Game of Dice Task (GDT) captures probabilistic risk-taking, which is an important feature of addictions and integral to gambling disorder (GD). No research appears to have assessed effects of gambling-specific priming manipulations or the pharmacological basis of such effects on the GDT.
AIMS: To investigate effects of slot machine gambling (Slots) and d-amphetamine (AMPH; 20 mg) on risk-taking in people with GD and healthy controls (HCs) (n = 30/group). The role of dopamine (DA) was assessed by pre-treating participants with the D2 receptor (D2R)-preferring antagonist, haloperidol (HAL; 3-mg) or mixed D1R-D2R antagonist, fluphenazine (FLU; 3-mg).
HYPOTHESES: Slots and AMPH will each increase risk-taking based on fewer (less probable) possible outcomes selected (POS) and poorer net monetary outcomes (NMO; gains minus losses) on the GDT, with stronger effects in Group GD. If DA mediates these effects, outcomes will vary with pre-treatment.
METHOD: Participants attended a pre-experimental baseline session and 4 test sessions. Antagonist Group (HAL, FLU) was manipulated between-participants. Pre-treatment (antagonist, placebo) was manipulated within-participants and counterbalanced over sessions for Slots and AMPH test phases. Moderator/mediator effects of trait and neuropsychological factors and GD severity (South Oaks Gambling Screen; SOGS) were explored via covariance.
RESULTS: AMPH led to an escalation in risky POS over trial blocks in both groups, regardless of pre-treatment. Cognitive inflexibility (high perseveration-proneness) moderated this effect in Group HC. In Group GD, SOGS selectively predicted riskier POS on AMPH sessions. Group GD achieved poorer NMO vs. Group HC on the pre-experimental baseline and Placebo-Slots sessions. Group HC selectively displayed poorer NMO on the Antagonist-Slots session.
CONCLUSIONS: The GDT can detect behavioral and pharmacological priming effects. Cognitive inflexibility and symptom severity moderate AMPH-induced risk-taking in HC and GD participants, respectively. Sensitization-related "wanting" of risk may contribute to the latter effect in people with GD.
AIMS: To investigate effects of slot machine gambling (Slots) and d-amphetamine (AMPH; 20 mg) on risk-taking in people with GD and healthy controls (HCs) (n = 30/group). The role of dopamine (DA) was assessed by pre-treating participants with the D2 receptor (D2R)-preferring antagonist, haloperidol (HAL; 3-mg) or mixed D1R-D2R antagonist, fluphenazine (FLU; 3-mg).
HYPOTHESES: Slots and AMPH will each increase risk-taking based on fewer (less probable) possible outcomes selected (POS) and poorer net monetary outcomes (NMO; gains minus losses) on the GDT, with stronger effects in Group GD. If DA mediates these effects, outcomes will vary with pre-treatment.
METHOD: Participants attended a pre-experimental baseline session and 4 test sessions. Antagonist Group (HAL, FLU) was manipulated between-participants. Pre-treatment (antagonist, placebo) was manipulated within-participants and counterbalanced over sessions for Slots and AMPH test phases. Moderator/mediator effects of trait and neuropsychological factors and GD severity (South Oaks Gambling Screen; SOGS) were explored via covariance.
RESULTS: AMPH led to an escalation in risky POS over trial blocks in both groups, regardless of pre-treatment. Cognitive inflexibility (high perseveration-proneness) moderated this effect in Group HC. In Group GD, SOGS selectively predicted riskier POS on AMPH sessions. Group GD achieved poorer NMO vs. Group HC on the pre-experimental baseline and Placebo-Slots sessions. Group HC selectively displayed poorer NMO on the Antagonist-Slots session.
CONCLUSIONS: The GDT can detect behavioral and pharmacological priming effects. Cognitive inflexibility and symptom severity moderate AMPH-induced risk-taking in HC and GD participants, respectively. Sensitization-related "wanting" of risk may contribute to the latter effect in people with GD.