Cited by 10Impact of Technology on AdolescentsGambling Behavior and TreatmentsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Concurrent behavioral modeling and multimodal neuroimaging reveals how feedback affects the performance of decision making in internet gaming disorder

Open access
Zeng, Xinglin, Sun, Ying Hao, Gao, Fei, Hua, Lin, Xu, Shiyang, Yuan, Zhen·2024·NeuroImage

Abstract

Internet gaming disorder (IGD) prompts inquiry into how feedback from prior gaming rounds influences subsequent risk-taking behavior and potential neural mechanisms. Forty-two participants, including 15 with IGD and 27 health controls (HCs), underwent a sequential risk-taking task. Hierarchy Bayesian modeling was adopted to measure risky propensity, behavioral consistence, and affection by emotion ratings from last trial. Concurrent electroencephalogram and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (EEG-fNIRS) recordings were performed to demonstrate when, where and how the previous-round feedback affects the decision making to the next round. We discovered that the IGD illustrated heightened risk-taking propensity as compared to the HCs, indicating by the computational modeling (p = 0.028). EEG results also showed significant time window differences in univariate and multivariate pattern analysis between the IGD and HCs after the loss of the game. Further, reduced brain activation in the prefrontal cortex during the task was detected in IGD as compared to that of the control group. The findings underscore the importance of understanding the aberrant decision-making processes in IGD and suggest potential implications for future interventions and treatments aimed at addressing this behavioral addiction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120726

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Individuals with internet gaming disorders engage in higher risk-taking behaviors driven by dysregulation of reward processing, impaired impulse control, and weakened inhibitory mechanisms.

    “Individuals with internet gaming disorders have been found to engage in higher risk-taking behaviors driven by dysregulation of the reward processing system, impaired impulse control, and weakened inhibitory mechanisms [36].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zeng, X., Sun, Y. H., Gao, F., Hua, L., Xu, S., & Yuan, Z.
Affiliations
  • University of Macau (MO)
  • Fudan University (CN)
  • Shanxi Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Yuan, Zhen
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-08
Volume
297
Pages
120726
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400424349
Cited by
10
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1
FWCI
7.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
internet gaming disorder, decision-making, risk propensity, feedback effects, behavioral addiction, prefrontal cortex activation, computational modeling, behavioral consistency
MeSH terms
Internet Addiction Disorder, Adult, Brain, Decision Making, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Male, Risk-Taking, Prefrontal Cortex, Video Games, Spectroscopy, Near-Infrared, Feedback, Psychological, Young Adult, Multimodal Imaging

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