Cited by 87Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Cue-Induced Craving Increases Impulsivity via Changes in Striatal Value Signals in Problem Gamblers

Open access
Miedl, Stephan F., Büchel, Christian, Peters, Jan·2014·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Impulsive behavior such as steep temporal discounting is a hallmark of addiction and is associated with relapse. In pathological gamblers, discounting may be further increased by the presence of gambling-related cues in the environment, but the extent to which the gambling relatedness of task settings affects reward responses in gambling addiction is debated. In the present study, human problem gamblers made choices between immediate rewards and individually tailored larger-but-later rewards while visual gambling-related scenes were presented in the background.N= 17 participants were scanned using fMRI, whereas N= 5 additional participants completed a behavioral version of the task. Postscan craving ratings were acquired for each image, and behavioral and neuroimaging data were analyzed separately for high- and low-craving trials (median split analysis). Discounting was steeper for high versus low craving trials. Neuroimaging revealed a positive correlation with model-based subjective value in midbrain and striatum in low-craving trials that was reversed in high-craving trials. These findings reveal a modulation of striatal reward responses in gamblers by addiction-related cues, and highlight a potentially important mechanism that may contribute to relapse. Cue-induced changes in striatal delayed reward signals may lead to increased discounting of future rewards, which might in turn affect the likelihood of relapse.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.5020-13.2014

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miedl, S. F., Büchel, C., & Peters, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Salzburg (AT)
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2014-03-26
Volume
34
Issue
13
Pages
4750-4755
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1976261289
Cited by
87
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5
FWCI
12.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
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
problem gambling, cue-induced craving, impulsivity, delay discounting, delayed rewards, midbrain, relapse, addiction
MeSH terms
Adult, Computer Simulation, Corpus Striatum, Cues, Gambling, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Impulsive Behavior, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation, Reward, Behavior, Addictive

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