Altered Neural Reward Representations in Pathological Gamblers Revealed by Delay and Probability Discounting
Open accessAbstract
CONTEXT: The neural basis of excessive delay discounting and reduced risk sensitivity of pathological gamblers with a particular focus on subjective neural reward representations has not been previously examined. OBJECTIVE: To examine how pathological gamblers represent subjective reward value at a neural level and how this is affected by gambling severity. DESIGN: Model-based functional magnetic resonance imaging study with patients and control subjects. SETTING: Department of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were recruited from the local community by advertisement and through self-help groups. A sample of 16 pathological gamblers (according to the DSM-IV definition) was matched by age, sex, smoking status, income, educational level, and handedness to 16 healthy controls. RESULTS: Pathological gamblers showed increased discounting of delayed rewards and a trend toward decreased discounting of probabilistic rewards compared with matched controls. At the neural level, a significant group × condition interaction indicated that reward representations in the gamblers were modulated in a condition-specific manner, such that they exhibited increased (delay discounting) and decreased (probability discounting) neural value correlations in the reward system. In addition, throughout the reward system, neuronal value signals for delayed rewards were negatively correlated with gambling severity. CONCLUSIONS: The results extend previous reports of a generally hypoactive reward system in pathological gamblers by showing that, even when subjective reward valuation is accounted for, gamblers still show altered reward representations. Furthermore, results point toward a gradual degradation of mesolimbic reward representations for delayed rewards during the course of pathological gambling.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Certain studies report a blunted striatal dopamine response to cues in pathological gamblers.
“It is worth mentioning that certain studies instead report a blunted striatal dopamine response to cues in pathological gamblers (Balodis et al., 2012; Miedl, Peters, & Büchel, 2012).”
From Cued for Risk: Evidence for an Incentive Sensitization Framework to Explain the Interplay between Stress and Anxiety, Substance Abuse, and Reward Uncertainty in Disordered Gambling Behavior (2019) · cites this paper as Miedl, Peters, & Büchel, 2012
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 69 · Cited by 229
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Engelmann JB, Brooks AM. Behavioral and neural effects of delays during inter- temporal choice are independent of probability. J Neurosci. 2009;29(19):6055- 6057.
- Pine A, Shiner T, Seymour B, Dolan RJ. Dopamine, time, and impulsivity in humans. J Neurosci. 2010;30(26):8888-8896.
- Authors
- Miedl, S. F.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Miedl, Stephan F.
- ORCID
- Miedl, Stephan F.
- Venue
- Archives of General Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2012-02-01
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 177
- ISSN
- 0003-990X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2028636953
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 69
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 22.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Archives of General Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- gambling addiction, delay discounting, probability discounting, reward systems, mesolimbic system, gambling severity, delayed rewards, probabilistic reward
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Brain, Choice Behavior, Female, Gambling, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Probability, Reaction Time, Reward, Time Factors, Case-Control Studies, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review