Mesolimbic dopamine release is linked to symptom severity in pathological gambling
Abstract
Background Brain dopamine neurons code rewarding environmental stimuli by releasing endogenous dopamine, a transmission signal that is important for reinforcement learning. Human reward-seeking gambling behavior, and especially pathological gambling, has been presumed to be modulated by brain dopamine.Methods Striatal dopamine release was studied with [(11)C]raclopride positron emission tomography (PET) during gambling with an ecologically valid slot machine gambling task. Twenty-four males with and without pathological gambling (DSM-IV) were scanned three times, and the effects of different gambling outcomes (high-reward and low-reward vs. control task) on dopamine release were evaluated.Results Striatal dopamine was released in both groups during high-reward but also low-reward tasks. The dopamine release during the low-reward task was located in the associative part of the caudate nucleus. During the high-reward task, the effect was also seen in the ventral striatum and the magnitude of dopamine release was associated with parallel gambling "high". Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between dopamine release during the low-reward and the high-reward task. There was no general difference in the magnitude of dopamine release between pathological gamblers and controls. However, in pathological gamblers, dopamine release correlated positively with gambling symptom severity.Conclusions Striatal dopamine is released during gambling irrespective of gambling outcome suggesting that the mere expectation/prediction of reward is sufficient to induce dopaminergic changes. Although dopamine release during slot machine gambling is comparable between healthy controls and pathological gamblers, greater gambling symptom severity is associated with greater dopaminergic responses. Thus, as the dopamine reward deficiency theory predicts blunted mesolimbic dopamine responses to gambling in addicted individuals, our results question the validity of the reward deficiency hypothesis in pathological gambling.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Decreases in D2 receptor binding are not seen in pathological gamblers compared with controls, despite a significant impulsive component.
“However, it should be noted that decreases in D2 receptor binding are not seen in pathological gamblers compared to control subjects, which also has a significant impulsive component (Boileau et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2012; Joutsa et al., 2012; Linnet et al., 2011).”
From Imaging addiction: D2 receptors and dopamine signaling in the striatum as biomarkers for impulsivity (2014) · cites this paper as Joutsa et al., 2012
Gambling results in increases in mesolimbic and striatal dopamine release.
“Beyond mesolimbic dopamine’s role in natural rewards and the self-administration of a wide range of addictive substances, recent evidence also suggests that gambling results in increases in mesolimbic and striatal dopamine release (Joutsa et al., 2012; Linnet et al., 2012; Linnet, Møller, Peterson, Gjedde, & Doudet, 2011; Zack & Poulos, 2009).”
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 Joutsa et al., 2012
Striatal dopamine release in problem gamblers correlates with severity of problem gambling.
“Studies have correlated striatal dopamine release in problem gamblers with severity of problem gambling (Joutsa et al., 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 Joutsa et al., 2012
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 209
- Authors
- Joutsa, J., Johansson, J., Niemelä, S., Ollikainen, A., Hirvonen, M. M., Piepponen, P., Arponen, E., Alho, H., Voon, V., Rinne, J. O., Hietala, J., & Kaasinen, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Turku (FI)
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Joutsa, Juho
- ORCID
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1992-1999
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1984198260
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 27.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- STM:n Hallinnonalan avoin julkaisuarkisto (Julkari) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Paulon Säätiö
- Suomen Lääketieteen Säätiö
- Turun Yliopisto
- Orionin Tutkimussäätiö
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- gambling addiction, striatal dopamine release, mesolimbic dopamine system, slot machine gambling, caudate nucleus, ventral striatum, reward anticipation
- MeSH terms
- Corpus Striatum, Dopamine, Gambling, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Reward, Dopamine Antagonists, Radiopharmaceuticals, Raclopride, Positron-Emission Tomography
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