Journal of behavioral addictions · 2020
Testing the transdiagnostic hypothesis of inhibitory control deficits in addictions: An experimental study on gambling disorder.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Penolazzi Barbara, Del Missier Fabio, Stramaccia Davide Francesco, Monego Anna Laura, Castelli Luigi, Manzan Amalia, Bertoli Marco, Galfano Giovanni
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Many psychopathologies, including addictions, are characterized by inhibitory control deficits. In this regard, recent studies on substance-related disorders (SRD) have shown an impairment in the ability to inhibit potentially interfering memories, despite preserved motor inhibition. To investigate whether the same dissociation could also characterize gambling disorder (GD) in a transdiagnostic perspective, we tested both cognitive and motor inhibitory processes through dedicated tasks, for the first time in this behavioral addiction.
METHODS: 30 outpatients with GD and 30 healthy controls performed a go/no-go task addressing the integrity of motor inhibition, and the Retrieval Practice Paradigm, a task addressing the integrity of memory inhibition as indexed by the Retrieval-Induced Forgetting (RIF) effect. Self-report questionnaires assessing impulsivity were also administered.
RESULTS: Whereas RIF was similar across the two groups, patients showed more commission errors in the go/no-go task, and higher self-rated scores of impulsivity than controls.
DISCUSSION: The present findings suggest preserved memory inhibition and impaired motor response inhibition in GD, a pattern of inhibitory deficits opposite to that previously reported for SRD. Therefore, although both GD and SRD are characterized by altered inhibitory processing, a more fine-grained analysis revealed a specific inhibitory profile indicating vulnerability in different inhibitory components.
CONCLUSION: The present study highlights the need to investigate the multifaceted construct of inhibition more thoroughly, using performance measures able to assess its various components. This approach would enable to both better characterize different psychopathologies and orient their treatment.
METHODS: 30 outpatients with GD and 30 healthy controls performed a go/no-go task addressing the integrity of motor inhibition, and the Retrieval Practice Paradigm, a task addressing the integrity of memory inhibition as indexed by the Retrieval-Induced Forgetting (RIF) effect. Self-report questionnaires assessing impulsivity were also administered.
RESULTS: Whereas RIF was similar across the two groups, patients showed more commission errors in the go/no-go task, and higher self-rated scores of impulsivity than controls.
DISCUSSION: The present findings suggest preserved memory inhibition and impaired motor response inhibition in GD, a pattern of inhibitory deficits opposite to that previously reported for SRD. Therefore, although both GD and SRD are characterized by altered inhibitory processing, a more fine-grained analysis revealed a specific inhibitory profile indicating vulnerability in different inhibitory components.
CONCLUSION: The present study highlights the need to investigate the multifaceted construct of inhibition more thoroughly, using performance measures able to assess its various components. This approach would enable to both better characterize different psychopathologies and orient their treatment.