Fronto-striatal dysregulation in drug addiction and pathological gambling: consistent inconsistencies?
Open accessAbstract
Alterations in appetitive processing are central to the major psychological theories of addiction, with differential predictions made by the reward deficiency, incentive salience, and impulsivity hypotheses. Functional MRI has become the chief means of testing these predictions, with experiments reliably highlighting disturbances at the level of the striatum, medial prefrontal cortex, and affiliated regions. However, demonstrations of hypo-reactivity and hyper-reactivity of this circuitry in drug addicted groups are reported in approximately equal measure. Similar findings are echoed in the emergent neuroimaging literature on pathological gambling, which has recently witnessed a coming of age. The first aim of this article is to consider some of the methodological aspects of these experiments that could influence the observed direction of group-level effects, including the baseline condition, trial structure and timing, and the nature of the appetitive cues (drug-related, monetary, or primary rewards). The second aim is to highlight the conceptual traction that is offered by pathological gambling, as a model of a 'toxicity free' addiction and an illness where tasks of monetary reinforcement afford a more direct mapping to the abused commodity. Our conclusion is that relatively subtle decisions in task design appear capable of driving group differences in fronto-striatal circuitry in entirely opposing directions, even with tasks and task variants that look ostensibly similar. Differentiation between the psychological theories of addiction will require a greater breadth of experimental designs, with more research needed on processing of primary appetitive cues, aversive processing, and in vulnerable/at-risk groups.
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?
There are caveats, for example hypoactive engagement of reward circuitry during the anticipatory phase of monetary processing, with some researchers proposing differences relating to processing of addictive cues (hyperactive reward responding) and non-addictive rewarding cues (relatively hypoactive reward responding).
“There are, however, some caveats, for example hypoactive engagement of reward circuitry during the anticipatory phase of monetary processing (Balodis and Potenza, 2015), with some researchers proposing di ff erences relating to the processing of addictive cues (hyperactive reward responding) and non-addictive rewarding cues (relatively hypoactive reward responding) (Limbrick-Old fi eld et al., 201”
From The Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model for addictive behaviors: Update, generalization to addictive behaviors beyond internet-use disorders, and specification of the process character of addictive behaviors (2019) · cites this paper as Limbrick-Oldfield et al., 2013
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 104 · Cited by 143
- Authors
- Limbrick-Oldfield, E. H., van Holst, R. J., & Clark, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- ORCID
- Clark, Luke
- Venue
- NeuroImage: Clinical
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 2
- Pages
- 385-393
- ISSN
- 2213-1582 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3777686
- OpenAlex
- W2087495858
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 104
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 2.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- NeuroImage Clinical (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Keywords
- drug addiction, gambling addiction, frontostriatal circuits, incentive salience, impulsivity, medial prefrontal cortex, striatum, task design, monetary reinforcement, primary reward
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