CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 410Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gambling Near-Misses Enhance Motivation to Gamble and Recruit Win-Related Brain Circuitry

Open access
Clark, Luke, Lawrence, Andrew J., Astley-Jones, Frances, Gray, Nicola·2009·Neuron
DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.031PMC PMC2658737
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

"Near-miss" events, where unsuccessful outcomes are proximal to the jackpot, increase gambling propensity and may be associated with the addictiveness of gambling, but little is known about the neurocognitive mechanisms that underlie their potency. Using a simplified slot machine task, we measured behavioral and neural responses to gambling outcomes. Compared to "full-misses," near-misses were experienced as less pleasant, but increased desire to play. This effect was restricted to trials where the subject had personal control over arranging their gamble. Near-miss outcomes recruited striatal and insula circuitry that also responded to monetary wins; in addition, near-miss-related activity in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex varied as a function of personal control. Insula activity to near-misses correlated with self-report ratings as well as a questionnaire measure of gambling propensity. These data indicate that near-misses invigorate gambling through the anomalous recruitment of reward circuitry, despite the objective lack of monetary reinforcement on these trials.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.031

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Screen Display for the Slot Machine Task The slot machine task displayed two reels, a payline and a box displaying current earnings. Both reels displayed the same six icons. Each trial commenced with a selection phase (duration 5 s), where either the participant or the computer selected the “play icon” on the left-hand reel. The right-hand reel then spun for a variable anticipation phase (duration 2.8–6 s), decelerating to a standstill. In the outcome phase (duration 4 s), if the play icon on the right-hand reel stopped in the payline (i.e., was aligned with the chosen play icon on the left-hand reel), the participant won £0.50. Other outcomes yielded no win; it was not possible for the participant to lose money. Trials where the right-hand reel reached a standstill one position from the payline (either above or below) were classified as near-misses, and trials where the right-hand reel stopped more than one position from the payline were classified as full-misses. During the selection phase, participants performed a pseudorandom sequence of participant-chosen (white background) and computer-chosen (black background) trials. On participant-chosen trials, the subject was able to rotate the left-hand reel and select a play icon by moving it around to the payline. On computer-chosen trials, the computer would rotate the left-hand reel until one play icon was highlighted on the payline; the subject was required to confirm selection with a button press to ensure adequate attention.
Figure 1 Screen Display for the Slot Machine Task The slot machine task displayed two reels, a payline and a box displaying current earnings. Both reels displayed the same six icons. Each trial commenced with a selection phase (duration 5 s), where either the participant or the computer selected the “play icon” on the left-hand reel. The right-hand reel then spun for a variable anticipation phase (duration 2.8–6 s), decelerating to a standstill. In the outcome phase (duration 4 s), if the play icon on the right-hand reel stopped in the payline (i.e., was aligned with the chosen play icon on the left-hand reel), the participant won £0.50. Other outcomes yielded no win; it was not possible for the participant to lose money. Trials where the right-hand reel reached a standstill one position from the payline (either above or below) were classified as near-misses, and trials where the right-hand reel stopped more than one position from the payline were classified as full-misses. During the selection phase, participants performed a pseudorandom sequence of participant-chosen (white background) and computer-chosen (black background) trials. On participant-chosen trials, the subject was able to rotate the left-hand reel and select a play icon by moving it around to the payline. On computer-chosen trials, the computer would rotate the left-hand reel until one play icon was highlighted on the payline; the subject was required to confirm selection with a button press to ensure adequate attention.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Subjective Ratings on the Slot Machine Task Ratings for each subject were standardized based on the individual's mean and standard deviation for that rating, given the variability in anchoring across subjects. (A) Ratings of “How do you rate your chances of winning?” were significantly higher on participant-chosen trials compared to computer-chosen trials (t39 = 5.09, p < 0.001). (B) Ratings of “How much do you want to continue to play the game?” on near-miss and full-miss outcomes. The “near-miss effect” (increased desire to play after near-misses) was restricted to trials where the subject had personal control over the gamble; near-misses selected by the computer significantly reduced desire to play. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.
Figure 2 Subjective Ratings on the Slot Machine Task Ratings for each subject were standardized based on the individual's mean and standard deviation for that rating, given the variability in anchoring across subjects. (A) Ratings of “How do you rate your chances of winning?” were significantly higher on participant-chosen trials compared to computer-chosen trials (t39 = 5.09, p < 0.001). (B) Ratings of “How much do you want to continue to play the game?” on near-miss and full-miss outcomes. The “near-miss effect” (increased desire to play after near-misses) was restricted to trials where the subject had personal control over the gamble; near-misses selected by the computer significantly reduced desire to play. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Neural Activity to Winning and Near-Miss Outcomes (A) Neural responses to monetary wins compared to all non-wins, modeled to the onset of the outcome phase. Suprathreshold voxels (p < 0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons) are displayed across 5 axial sections on the ch2bet template, using MRIcron software (http://www.sph.sc.edu/comd/rorden/mricron/). There was significant win-related activity in the ventral putamen (left: −14 10 −2; right 16 4 −12), anterior insula (left: −36 18 −4; right 28 16 −10), midbrain (−6 −20 −14) and rostral anterior cingulate cortex (−4 32 6) (see Table S3). (B) Neural responses to near-miss outcomes compared to full-miss outcomes, using a mask of win-related activity (mask thresholded at pFWE-corr < 0.05). The contrast map has been thresholded at the lower level of p < 0.001 uncorrected to illustrate the anatomical extent of the clusters. Near-misses were associated with significant activity (pFWE-corr < 0.05) in the bilateral ventral putamen (left: −8 4 −2; right 12 2 −2) and right anterior insula (32 18 0).
Figure 3 Neural Activity to Winning and Near-Miss Outcomes (A) Neural responses to monetary wins compared to all non-wins, modeled to the onset of the outcome phase. Suprathreshold voxels (p < 0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons) are displayed across 5 axial sections on the ch2bet template, using MRIcron software (http://www.sph.sc.edu/comd/rorden/mricron/). There was significant win-related activity in the ventral putamen (left: −14 10 −2; right 16 4 −12), anterior insula (left: −36 18 −4; right 28 16 −10), midbrain (−6 −20 −14) and rostral anterior cingulate cortex (−4 32 6) (see Table S3). (B) Neural responses to near-miss outcomes compared to full-miss outcomes, using a mask of win-related activity (mask thresholded at pFWE-corr < 0.05). The contrast map has been thresholded at the lower level of p < 0.001 uncorrected to illustrate the anatomical extent of the clusters. Near-misses were associated with significant activity (pFWE-corr < 0.05) in the bilateral ventral putamen (left: −8 4 −2; right 12 2 −2) and right anterior insula (32 18 0).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Near Miss by Control Interaction in Rostral ACC (A) The interactive effect of near-misses and personal control was associated with signal change in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC, Brodmann Area 24). The contrast image shown was restricted to near-miss outcomes that passed through the payline, compared to full-misses, using a mask of win-related activity (mask thresholded at pFWE-corr < 0.05). For display purposes, the contrast map is thresholded at p < 0.001 uncorrected. (B) Extracted signal change from this cluster (averaged across all suprathreshold voxels using Marsbar) reveals that rACC activity was greater for near-misses (compared to full-misses) on participant-chosen trials (p = 0.005) but was lower for near-misses (compared to full-misses) on computer-chosen trials (p = 0.058). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.
Figure 4 Near Miss by Control Interaction in Rostral ACC (A) The interactive effect of near-misses and personal control was associated with signal change in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC, Brodmann Area 24). The contrast image shown was restricted to near-miss outcomes that passed through the payline, compared to full-misses, using a mask of win-related activity (mask thresholded at pFWE-corr < 0.05). For display purposes, the contrast map is thresholded at p < 0.001 uncorrected. (B) Extracted signal change from this cluster (averaged across all suprathreshold voxels using Marsbar) reveals that rACC activity was greater for near-misses (compared to full-misses) on participant-chosen trials (p = 0.005) but was lower for near-misses (compared to full-misses) on computer-chosen trials (p = 0.058). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Insula Activation to Near-Misses Correlated with Trait Gambling Propensity and the Subjective Effect of Near-Misses (A) A trait measure of the susceptibility to gambling biases (the gambling-related cognitions scale; GRCS) predicted near-miss-related neural activity (contrast of near-misses minus full-misses) in the anterior insula/caudolateral orbitofrontal cortex (Brodmann Area 47). An SPM5 regression of near-miss-related activity onto GRCS total score, using a mask of win-related activity, revealed a single significant cluster in the left anterior insula (x, y, z = −42, 18, −10, z = 3.98, pFWE-corr = 0.018), with extracted signal change displayed on the right hand side. For display purposes, the regression map is thresholded at p < 0.005 uncorrected. (B) Near-miss related activity in the anterior insula (Brodmann Area 13) was also significantly correlated with the subjective effects of near-miss outcomes on a rating of “How much do you want to continue to play the game?” The SPM5 regression map reveals a cluster in the right anterior insula (x, y, z = 30, 16, −10, z = 3.24, punc = 0.001), with extracted signal change displayed on the right hand side. For display purposes, the regression map is thresholded at p < 0.005 uncorrected.
Figure 5 Insula Activation to Near-Misses Correlated with Trait Gambling Propensity and the Subjective Effect of Near-Misses (A) A trait measure of the susceptibility to gambling biases (the gambling-related cognitions scale; GRCS) predicted near-miss-related neural activity (contrast of near-misses minus full-misses) in the anterior insula/caudolateral orbitofrontal cortex (Brodmann Area 47). An SPM5 regression of near-miss-related activity onto GRCS total score, using a mask of win-related activity, revealed a single significant cluster in the left anterior insula (x, y, z = −42, 18, −10, z = 3.98, pFWE-corr = 0.018), with extracted signal change displayed on the right hand side. For display purposes, the regression map is thresholded at p < 0.005 uncorrected. (B) Near-miss related activity in the anterior insula (Brodmann Area 13) was also significantly correlated with the subjective effects of near-miss outcomes on a rating of “How much do you want to continue to play the game?” The SPM5 regression map reveals a cluster in the right anterior insula (x, y, z = 30, 16, −10, z = 3.24, punc = 0.001), with extracted signal change displayed on the right hand side. For display purposes, the regression map is thresholded at p < 0.005 uncorrected.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 410

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Clark, L., Lawrence, A. J., Astley-Jones, F., & Gray, N.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Clark, Luke
ORCID
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-02
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
481-490
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.031
PMC
PMC2658737
OpenAlex
W1992824053
Cited by
410
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 19
FWCI
27.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/D000599/1)
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, personal control, reward systems, striatum, insula, rostral anterior cingulate cortex, gambling motivation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Emotions, Female, Gambling, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motivation, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, 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