CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 185

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Iowa Gambling Task (IGT): twenty years after—Gambling disorder and IGT

Brevers, Damien, Bechara, Antoine, Cleeremans, Axel, Noël, Xavier·2013·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00665PMC PMC3786255
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00665

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 (A) A framework for advantageous deck selection in healthy controls. Pathway (a): Impulsive motivational processes directed at options featuring short-term salient rewards. Pathway (b): The moderation of impulsive processes by “hot” reflective processes involved in the reduction of impulsive-incentive reactions and in the ability to anticipate the potential outcomes of a given decision on an emotional basis. Pathway (c): The ability to control emotional reactions and inhibit basic behavioral impulses by “hot” executive/reflective functions allows rational and cognitive determinations of risks and benefits associated with options (only during the last trials of the IGT, that is, when participants have experienced the different winl/loss contingencies enough and become aware of which decks are more at risk than others), which further reinforce the efficiency of reward anticipation processes (e.g., to weigh short-term gains against long-term losses on both emotional and rational bases). Pathway (d): Adequate sensitivity to loss and reward and accurate assessment of the quality of the decision, which would bias advantageously forthcoming deck selections. (B) A framework for disadvantageous deck selection in pathological gamblers. Pathway (a): Hyperactive impulsive motivational processes directed at options featuring high, short-term rewards (as evidenced with attentional bias and implicit association toward gambling-related cues in PG; see Hyperactivity of impulsive processes toward gambling-related cues in PG). These impulsive processes could possibly interfere with or “hijack” the top-down “hot” reflective mechanisms necessary for triggering alarming signals about futures outcomes (as evidenced by fMRI studies which showed that, during disadvantageous lGT choice or during gambling·-related choice, PG exhibit increased activation in brain regions encompassing both impulsive-amygdala, ventral striatum, caudate nucleus, medial pulvinar nucleus - and “hot” reflective·- orbitofrontal cortex - processes; see Hyperactive impulsive processes and impaired IGT performance in PG). As a result, disadvantageous deck options may be flagged as salient and preferred to advantageous decks. Pathway (b): The “hijack” by impulsive incentive processes of the “hot” reflective resources would hamper further elaborated decontextualized problem-solving abilities (suggested by the absence of correlation between PGs' impairments in “cool” executive functioning and their lowered IGT performances, at either the early or the latter stages of IGT; see Hyperactive impulsive processes and impaired IGT performance in PG). Pathway (c): Hyposensitivity to loss and reward in PG (as evidenced by fMRI studies which observed a diminished ventral striatal response in PG after receiving monetary rewards and losses; see Gambling disorder and post-decision appraisals during the IGT) and failure at correctly assessing the quality of their already poor decision (evidenced by studies which observed a dissociation between PGs' subjective assessment of performance and objective performance; see Gambling disorder and post-decision appraisals during the IGT). As a result, PG might fail at properly integrate the outcomes of their actions over time, which could lead them to persist in taking high-risk choices, despite suffering large losses.
Figure 1 (A) A framework for advantageous deck selection in healthy controls. Pathway (a): Impulsive motivational processes directed at options featuring short-term salient rewards. Pathway (b): The moderation of impulsive processes by “hot” reflective processes involved in the reduction of impulsive-incentive reactions and in the ability to anticipate the potential outcomes of a given decision on an emotional basis. Pathway (c): The ability to control emotional reactions and inhibit basic behavioral impulses by “hot” executive/reflective functions allows rational and cognitive determinations of risks and benefits associated with options (only during the last trials of the IGT, that is, when participants have experienced the different winl/loss contingencies enough and become aware of which decks are more at risk than others), which further reinforce the efficiency of reward anticipation processes (e.g., to weigh short-term gains against long-term losses on both emotional and rational bases). Pathway (d): Adequate sensitivity to loss and reward and accurate assessment of the quality of the decision, which would bias advantageously forthcoming deck selections. (B) A framework for disadvantageous deck selection in pathological gamblers. Pathway (a): Hyperactive impulsive motivational processes directed at options featuring high, short-term rewards (as evidenced with attentional bias and implicit association toward gambling-related cues in PG; see Hyperactivity of impulsive processes toward gambling-related cues in PG). These impulsive processes could possibly interfere with or “hijack” the top-down “hot” reflective mechanisms necessary for triggering alarming signals about futures outcomes (as evidenced by fMRI studies which showed that, during disadvantageous lGT choice or during gambling·-related choice, PG exhibit increased activation in brain regions encompassing both impulsive-amygdala, ventral striatum, caudate nucleus, medial pulvinar nucleus - and “hot” reflective·- orbitofrontal cortex - processes; see Hyperactive impulsive processes and impaired IGT performance in PG). As a result, disadvantageous deck options may be flagged as salient and preferred to advantageous decks. Pathway (b): The “hijack” by impulsive incentive processes of the “hot” reflective resources would hamper further elaborated decontextualized problem-solving abilities (suggested by the absence of correlation between PGs' impairments in “cool” executive functioning and their lowered IGT performances, at either the early or the latter stages of IGT; see Hyperactive impulsive processes and impaired IGT performance in PG). Pathway (c): Hyposensitivity to loss and reward in PG (as evidenced by fMRI studies which observed a diminished ventral striatal response in PG after receiving monetary rewards and losses; see Gambling disorder and post-decision appraisals during the IGT) and failure at correctly assessing the quality of their already poor decision (evidenced by studies which observed a dissociation between PGs' subjective assessment of performance and objective performance; see Gambling disorder and post-decision appraisals during the IGT). As a result, PG might fail at properly integrate the outcomes of their actions over time, which could lead them to persist in taking high-risk choices, despite suffering large losses.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

Research works printed but not linked: 99

  1. Abbott M. W. Volberg R. A. (1995). The New Zealand national survey of problem and pathological gambling. J. Gambl. Stud. 12, 143– 160 10.1007/BF01539171 24233913 · DOI
  2. Baddeley A. Della Sala S. (1996). Working memory and executive control. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.B Biol. Sci. 351, 1397– 1403 discussion: 1403–1404. 10.1098/rstb.1996.0123 8941951 · DOI
  3. Barkley R. (1997). Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, self-regulation, and time: towards a more comprehensive theory. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 18, 271– 279 10.1097/00004703-199708000-00009 9276836 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bechara A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain Cogn. 55, 30– 40 10.1016/j.bandc.2003.04.001 15134841 · DOI
  5. Bechara A. Damasio H. Tranel D. Damasio A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science 275, 1293– 1294 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 9036851 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bechara A. Dolan S. Denburg N. Hindes A. Anderson S. W. Nathan P. E. (2001). Decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers. Neuropsychologia 39, 376– 389 10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00136-6 11164876 · DOI
  7. Bechara A. Tranel D. Damasio H. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making impairment of patients with bilateral lesions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Brain 123, 2189– 2202 10.1093/brain/123.11.2189 11050020 · DOI
  8. Brand M. (2008). Does the feedback from previous trials influence current decisions? A study on the role of feedback processing in making decisions under explicit risk conditions. J. Neuropsychol. 2, 431– 443 10.1348/174866407X220607 19824172 · DOI
  9. Brand M. Labudda K. Markowitsch H. J. (2006). Neuropsychological correlates of decision-making in ambiguous and risky situations. Neural Netw. 19, 1266– 1276 10.1016/j.neunet.2006.03.001 16942857 · DOI
  10. Brand M. Laier C. Pawlikowski M. Markowitsch H. J. (2009). Decision-making with and without feedback: the role of intelligence, strategies, and cognitive styles. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 31, 967– 981 10.1080/13803390902776860 19358007 · DOI
  11. Brand M. Recknor E. C. Grabenhorst F. Bechara A. (2007). Decisions under ambiguity and decisions under risk: correlations with executive functions and comparisons of two different gambling tasks with implicit and explicit rules. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 29, 86– 99 10.1080/13803390500507196 17162725 · DOI
  12. Brevers D. Cleeremans A. Tibboel H. Bechara A. Kornreich C. Verbanck P. (2011a). Reduced attentional blink for gambling-related stimuli in problem gamblers. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry 42, 265– 269 10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.01.005 21349247 · DOI
  13. Brevers D. Cleeremans A. Bechara A. Laloyaux C. Kornreich C. Verbanck P. (2011b). Time course of attentional bias for gambling information in problem gambling. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 25, 675– 682 10.1037/a0024201 21688874 PMC3792789 · DOI
  14. Brevers D. Cleeremans A. Goudriaan A. E. Bechara A. Kornreich C. Verbanck P. (2012a). Decision making under ambiguity but not under risk is related to problem gambling severity. Psychiatry Res. 200, 568– 574 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.03.053 22521232 · DOI
  15. Brevers D. Cleeremans A. Verbruggen F. Bechara A. Kornreich C. Verbanck P. (2012b). Impulsive action but impulsive choice determines problem gambling severity. PLoS ONE 7: e50647 10.1371/journal.pone.0050647 23209796 PMC3507734 · DOI
  16. Brevers D. Cleeremans A. Hermant C. Tibboel H. Kornreich C. Verbanck P. (2013a). Implicit gambling attitudes in problem gamblers: positive but not negative implicit associations. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry 44, 94– 97 10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.07.008 22940084 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Brevers D. Cleeremans A. Bechara A. Greisen M. Kornreich C. Verbanck P. (2013b). Impaired self-awareness in pathological gamblers. J. Gambl. Stud. 29, 119– 129 10.1007/s10899-012-9292-2 22273773 · DOI
  18. Brevers D. Cleeremans A. Bechara A. Kornreich C. Verbanck P. Noël X. (2013c). Impaired metacognitive capacities in problem gamblers. J. Gambl. Stud. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1007/s10899-010-9348-3 23149513 · DOI
  19. Cavedini P. Riboldi G. Keller R. D'Annucci A. Bellodi L. (2002). Frontal lobe dysfunction in gambling disorder patients. Biol. Psychiatry 51, 334– 341 10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01227-6 11958785 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Cisler J. M. Koster E. H. W. (2010). Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: an integrative review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 30, 203– 216 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003 20005616 PMC2814889 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Cohen M. X. Ranganath C. (2005). Behavioral and neural predictors of upcoming decisions. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 5, 117– 126 10.3758/CABN.5.2.117 16180619 · DOI
  22. Del Cul A. Dehaene S. Reyes P. Bravo E. Slachevsky A. (2009). Causal role of prefrontal cortex in the threshold for access to consciousness. Brain 132, 2531– 2540 10.1093/brain/awp111 19433438 · DOI · Paper page
  23. de Ruiter M. B. Veltman D. J. Goudriaan A. E. Oosterlaan J. Sjoerds Z. van den Brink W. (2009). Response perseveration and ventral prefrontal sensitivity to reward and punishment in male problem gamblers and smokers. Neuropsychopharmacology 34, 1027– 1038 10.1038/npp.2008.175 18830241 · DOI
  24. De Wilde B. Goudriaan A. Sabbe B. Hulstijn W. Dom G. (2013). Relapse in pathological gamblers: a pilot study on the predictive value of different impulsivity measures. J Behav. Addict. 2, 23– 30 10.1556/JBA.2.2013.1.4 26165768 · DOI
  25. Di Chiara G. (1999). Drug addiction as dopamine-dependent associative learning disorder. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 375, 13– 30 10.1016/S0014-2999(99)00372-6 10443561 · DOI
  26. Dunn B. D. Dalgleish T. Lawrence A. D. (2006). The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30, 239– 271 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001 16197997 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Everitt B. J. Robbins T. W. (2005). Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1481– 1489 10.1038/nn1579 16251991 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Fellows L. K. Farah M. J. (2005). Different underlying impairments in decision-making following ventromedial and dorsolateral frontal lobe damage in humans. Cereb. Cortex 15, 58– 63 10.1093/cercor/bhh108 15217900 · DOI
  29. Forbush K. T. Shaw M. Graeber M. A. Hovick L. Meyer V. J. Moser D. J. (2008). Neuropsychological characteristics and personality traits in gambling disorder. CNS Spectr. 13, 306– 315 18408650
  30. Franken I. A. (2003). Drug craving and addiction: integrating psychological and neuropsychopharmacological approaches. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 27, 563– 579 10.1016/S0278-5846(03)00081-2 12787841 · DOI
  31. Giancola P. R. Godlaski A. J. Roth R. M. (2012). Identifying component-processes of executive functioning that serve as risk factors for the alcohol-aggression relation. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 26, 201– 211 10.1037/a0025207 21875167 PMC3288328 · DOI
  32. Goldstein R. Z. Craig A. D. Bechara A. Garavan H. Childress A. R. Paulus M. P. (2009). The neurocircuitry of impaired insight in drug addiction. Trends Cogn.Sci. 13, 372– 380 10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.004 19716751 PMC2844118 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Goudriaan A. E. Oosterlaan J. de Beurs E. van den Brink W. (2005). Decision making in gambling disorder: a comparison between pathological gamblers, alcohol dependents, persons with Tourette syndrome, and normal controls. Cogn. Brain Res. 23, 137– 151 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.01.017 15795140 · DOI
  34. Goudriaan A. E. Oosterlaan J. de Beurs E. van den Brink W. (2006). Psychophysiological determinants and concomitants of deficient decision-making in pathological gamblers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 84, 231– 239 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.02.007 16574343 · DOI
  35. Grant J. E. Odlaug B. L. Chamberlain S. R. Schreiber L. R. N. (2012). Neurocognitive dysfunction in strategic and non-strategic gamblers. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 38, 336– 340 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2012.05.006 22613186 PMC3389298 · DOI
  36. Grant S. Contoreggi C. London E. D. (2000). Drug abusers show impaired performance in a laboratory test of decision making. Neuropsychologia 38, 1180– 1187 10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00158-X 10838152 · DOI
  37. Greenwald A. G. McGhee D. E. Schwartz J. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1464-1480 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 9654756 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Haruno M. Kawato M. (2006). Different neural correlates of reward expectation and reward expectation error in the putamen and caudate nucleus during stimulus-action-reward association learning. J. Neurophysiol. 95, 948– 959 10.1152/jn.00382.2005 16192338 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Hofmann W. Friese M. (2008). Impulses got the better of me: alcohol moderates the influence of implicit attitudes toward food cues on eating behavior. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 117, 420– 427 10.1037/0021-843X.117.2.420 18489218 · DOI
  40. Hofmann W. Friese M. Wiers R. W. (2008). Impulsive versus reflective influences on health behavior: a theoretical framework and empirical review. Health Psychol. Rev. 2, 111– 137 10.1080/17437190802617668 · DOI
  41. Iudicello J. E. Woods S. P. Cattie J. E. Doyle K. Grant I. (2013). Risky decision-making in HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND). Clin. Neuropsychol. 27, 256– 275 10.1080/13854046.2012.740077 23181946 PMC3609907 · DOI
  42. Kerr A. Zelazo P. D. (2004). Development of “hot” executive function: the children's gambling task. Brain Cogn. 55, 148– 157 10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00275-6 15134849 · DOI
  43. Kertzman S. Lidogoster H. Aizer A. Kotler M. Dannon P. N. (2011). Risk-taking in pathological gamblers is not a result of their impaired inhibition ability. Psychiatry Res. 188, 71– 77 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.02.021 21429591 · DOI
  44. Knutson B. Fong G. W. Bennett S. M. Adams C. M. Hommer D. (2003). A region of mesial prefrontal cortex tracks monetarily rewarding outcomes: characterization with rapid event-related fMRI. Neuroimage 18, 263– 272 10.1016/S1053-8119(02)00057-5 12595181 · DOI
  45. Korn D. A. Shaffer H. J. (1999). Gambling and the health of the public: adopting a public health perspective. J. Gambl. Stud. 15, 289– 365 10.1023/A:1023005115932 12766466 · DOI
  46. Krain A. L. Wilson A. M. Arbuckle R. Castellanos F. X. Milham M. P. (2006). Distinct neural mechanisms of risk and ambiguity: a meta-analysis of decision-making. Neuroimage 32, 477– 484 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02.047 16632383 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Krawczyk D. C. (2002). Contributions of the prefrontal cortex to the neural basis of human decision-making. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 26, 631– 664 10.1016/S0149-7634(02)00021-0 12479840 · DOI
  48. Lakey C. E. Goodie A. S. Campbell W. K. (2007). Frequent card playing and gambling disorder: the utility of the Georgia gambling task and Iowa gambling task for predicting pathology. J. Gambl. Stud. 23, 285– 297 10.1007/s10899-006-9034-4 17171543 · DOI
  49. Ledgerwood D. M. Orr E. S. Kaploun K. A. Milosevic A. Frisch G. R. Rupcich N. (2012). Executive function in pathological gamblers and healthy controls. J. Gambl. Stud. 28, 89– 103 10.1007/s10899-010-9237-6 21253846 · DOI
  50. Li X. Lu Z. L. D'Argembeau A. Ng M. Bechara A. (2010). The Iowa Gambling Task in FMRI images. Hum. Brain Mapp. 31, 410– 423 10.1002/hbm.20875 19777556 PMC2826566 · DOI
  51. Linnet J. Møller A. Peterson E. Gjedde A. Doudet D. (2011a). Dopamine release in ventral striatum during Iowa Gambling Task performance is associated with increased excitement levels in gambling disorder. Addiction 106, 383– 390 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03126.x 20883460 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Linnet J. Møller A. Peterson E. Gjedde A. Doudet D. (2011b). Inverse association between dopaminergic neurotransmission and Iowa Gambling Task performance in pathological gamblers and healthy controls. Scand. J. Psychol. 106, 383– 390 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03126.x 20704689 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Linnet J. Mouridsen K. Peterson E. Møller A. Doudet D. J. Gjedde A. (2012). Striatal dopamine release codes uncertainty in gambling disorder. Psychiatry Res. 204, 55– 60 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2012.04.012 22889563 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Linnet J. Peterson E. Doudet D. J. Gjedde A. Møller A. (2010). Dopamine release in ventral striatum of pathological gamblers losing money. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 122, 326– 333 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01591.x 20712823 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Linnet J. Rojskjaer S. Nygaard J. Maher B. A. (2006). Episodic chasing in pathological gamblers using the Iowa gambling task. Scand. J. Psychol. 47, 43– 49 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2006.00491.x 16433661 · DOI
  56. Manes F. Sahakian B. Clark L. Rogers R. Antoun N. Aitken M. (2002). Decision-making processes following damage to the prefrontal cortex. Brain 125, 624– 639 10.1093/brain/awf049 11872618 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Miedl S. F. Fehr T. Meyer G. Herrmann M. (2010). Neurobiological correlates of problem gambling in a quasi-realistic blackjack scenario as revealed by fMRI. Psychiatry Res. Neuroimaging 181, 165– 173 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2009.11.008 20138482 · DOI
  58. Monterosso J. Ehrman R. Napier K. L. O'Brien C. P. Childress A. R. (2001). Three decision-making tasks in cocaine-dependent patients: do they measure the same construct? Addiction 96, 1825– 1837 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.9612182512.x 11784475 · DOI
  59. Noël X. Bechara A. Dan B. Hanak C. Verbanck P. (2007). Response inhibition deficit is involved in poor decision making under risk in nonamnesic individuals with alcoholism. Neuropsychology 21, 778– 786 10.1037/0894-4105.21.6.778 17983291 · DOI
  60. Noël X. Brevers D. Bechara A. (2013). A neurocognitive approach to understanding the neurobiology of addiction. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 23, 632– 638 10.1016/j.conb.2013.01.018 23395462 PMC3670974 · DOI
  61. Oberg S. A. Christie G. J. Tata M. S. (2011). Problem gamblers exhibit reward hypersensitivity in medial frontal cortex during gambling. Neuropsychologia 49, 3768– 3775 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.037 21982697 · DOI
  62. Palomäki J. Laakasuo M. Salmela M. (2013). ‘This is just so unfair!’: a qualitative analysis of loss-induced emotions and tilting in on-line poker. Int. Gambl. Stud. 13, 255– 270 10.1080/14459795.2013.780631 · DOI
  63. Peterson E. Moller A. Doudet D. J. Bailey C. J. Vang Hansen K. Rodell A. (2010). Gambling disorder: relation of skin conductance response to dopamine neurotransmission and sensation seeking. Eur. Neurophsychopharmacol. 20, 766– 775 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2010.07.010 20813510 · DOI
  64. Petry N. M. (2001). Pathological gamblers, with and without substance use disorders, discount delayed rewards at high rates. J Abnorm. Psychol. 110, 482– 487 10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.482 11502091 · DOI
  65. Petry N. M. Bickel W. K. Arnett M. (1998). Shortened time horizons and insensitivity to future consequences in heroin addicts. Addiction 93, 729– 738 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.9357298.x 9692271 · DOI
  66. Potenza M. N. (2001). The neurobiology of gambling disorder. Semin. Clin. Neuropsychiatr. 6, 217– 226 10.1053/scnp.2001.22929 11447573 · DOI
  67. Potenza M. N. Steinberg M. A. Skudlarski P. Fulbright R. K. Lacadie C. M. Wilber M. K. (2003). Gambling urges in gambling disorder: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 60, 828– 836 10.1001/archpsyc.60.8.828 12912766 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Power Y. Goodyear B. Crockford D. (2012). Neural correlates of pathological gamblers preference for immediate rewards during the iowa gambling task: an FMRI study. J. Gambl. Stud. 28, 623– 636 10.1007/s10899-011-9278-5 22037936 · DOI
  69. Rahman S. Sahakian B. J. Cardinal R. N. Rogers R. D. Robbins T. W. (2001). Decision-making and neuropsychiatry. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5, 271– 277 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01650-8 11390298 · DOI
  70. Redish A. Jensen S. Johnson A. (2008). Addiction as vulnerabilities in the decision process. Behav. Brain Sci. 31, 461– 470 10.1017/S0140525X08004986 18662461 PMC3774323 · DOI
  71. Robbins T. W. Cador M. Taylor J. R. Everitt B. J. (1989). Limbic-striatal interactions in reward-related processes. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 13, 155– 162 10.1016/S0149-7634(89)80025-9 2682402 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Robinson T. E. Berridge K. C. (1993). The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res. Rev. 18, 247– 291 10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-P 8401595 · DOI · Paper page
  73. Roca M. Torralva T. Lopez P. Cetkovich M. Clark L. Manes F. (2008). Executive functions in pathologic gamblers selected in an ecologic setting. Cogn. Behav. Neurol. 21, 1– 4 10.1097/WNN.0b013e3181684358 18327015 · DOI
  74. Rogers R. D. Owen A. M. Middleton H. C. Williams E. J. Pickard J. D. Sahakian B. J. (1999). Choosing from small, likely rewards and large, unlikely rewards activated inferior and orbital prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 20, 9029– 9038 10516320 PMC6782753
  75. Rolls E. T. Grabenhorst F. (2008). The orbitofrontal cortex and beyond: from affect to decision-making. Prog. Neurobiol. 86, 216– 244 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2008.09.001 18824074 · DOI
  76. Rounis E. Maniscalco B. Rothwell J. C. Passingham R. Lau H. (2010). Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal cortex impairs metacognitive visual awareness. Cogn. Neurosci. 1, 165– 175 10.1080/17588921003632529 24168333 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Salimpoor V. N. Benovoy M. Larcher K. Dagher A. Zatorre R. J. (2011). Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 257– 262 10.1038/nn.2726 21217764 · DOI
  78. Sato A. Yasuda A. Ohira H. Miyawaki K. Nishikawa M. Kumano H. (2005). Effects of value and reward magnitude on feedback negativity and P300. Neuroreport 16, 407– 411 10.1097/00001756-200503150-00020 15729147 · DOI
  79. Sewards T. V. Sewards M. A. (2003). Representations of motivational drives in mesial cortex, medial thalamus, hypothalamus and midbrain. Brain Res. Bull. 61, 25– 49 10.1016/S0361-9230(03)00069-8 12788205 · DOI
  80. Slachevsky A. Pillon B. Fourneret P. Pradat-Diehl P. Jeannerod M. Dubois B. (2001). Preserved adjustment but impaired awareness in a sensory-motor conflict following prefrontal lesions. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 13, 332– 340 10.1162/08989290151137386 11371311 · DOI
  81. Slachevsky A. Pillon B. Fourneret P. Renié L. Levy R. (2003). The prefrontal cortex and conscious monitoring of action: an experimental study. Neuropsychologia 41, 655– 665 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00225-7 12591023 · DOI
  82. Smith R. S. DeCoster J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4, 108– 131 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_01 · DOI
  83. Starcke K. Pawlikowski M. Wolf O. T. Altstötter-Gleich C. Brand M. (2011). Decision-making under risk conditions is susceptible to interference by a secondary executive task. Cogn. Process. 12, 177– 182 10.1007/s10339-010-0387-3 21210182 · DOI · Paper page
  84. Stocco A. Fum D. Napoli A. (2009). Dissociable processes underlying decisions in the iowa gambling task: a new integrative framework. Behav. Brain Funct. 5: 1 10.1186/1744-9081-5-1 19121215 PMC2645419 · DOI · Paper page
  85. Sutherland M. T. McHugh M. J. Pariyadath V. Stein E. A. (2012). Resting state functional connectivity in addiction: Lessons learned and a road ahead. Neuroimage 62, 2281– 2295 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.117 22326834 PMC3401637 · DOI
  86. Tanabe J. Thompson L. Claus E. Dalwani M. Hutchison K. Banich M. T. (2007). Prefrontal cortex activity is reduced in gambling and nongambling substance users during decision-making. Hum. Brain Mapp. 28, 1276– 1286 10.1002/hbm.20344 17274020 PMC6871281 · DOI
  87. Turatto M. Sandrini M. Miniussi C. (2004). The role of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in visual change awareness. Neuroreport 15, 2549– 2452 10.1097/00001756-200411150-00024 15538193 · DOI
  88. Turnbull O. H. Evans C. E. Bunce A. Carzolio B. O'Connor J. (2005). Emotion-based learning and central executive resources: an investigation of intuition and the Iowa gambling task. Brain Cogn. 57, 244– 247 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.053 15780457 · DOI
  89. van Holst R. J. van den Brink W. Veltman D. J. Goudriaan A. E. (2010). Why gamblers fail to win: a review of cognitive and neuroimaging findings in gambling disorder. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 34, 87– 107 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.07.007 19632269 · DOI
  90. van Holst R. J. Veltman D. J. Büchel C. Van den Brink W. Goudriaan A. E. (2012). Distorted expectancy coding in problem gambling: is the addictive in the anticipation? Biol. Psychiatry 71, 741– 748 10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.12.030 22342105 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Verdejo-Garcia A. Bechara A. (2009). A somatic marker theory of addiction. Neuropharmacology 56, 48– 62 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2008.07.035 18722390 PMC2635337 · DOI
  92. Welte J. W. Barnes G. M. Wieczorek W. F. Tidwell M. C. Parker J. (2002). Gambling participation in the U.S. - results from a national survey. J. Gambl. Stud. 18, 313– 337 10.1023/A:1021019915591 12514913 · DOI
  93. Whitlow C. T. Liguori A. Livengood L. B. Hart S. L. Mussat-Whitlow B. J. Lamborn C. M. (2004). Long-term heavy marijuana users make costly decisions on a gambling task. Drug Alcohol. Dep. 76, 107– 111 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.04.009 15380295 · DOI
  94. Wise R. A. Rompre P. P. (1989). Brain dopamine and reward. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 40, 191– 225 10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.001203 2648975 · DOI · Paper page
  95. Wong S. W. Xue G. Bechara A. (2011). Integrating fMRI with psychophysiological measurements in the study of decision-making. J. Neurosci. Psychol. Econ. 4, 85– 94 10.1037/a0023525 21818407 PMC3147053 · DOI
  96. Yeung N. Botvinick M. M. Cohen J. D. (2004). The neural basis of error detection: Conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychol. Rev. 111, 931– 959 10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.931 15482068 · DOI · Paper page
  97. Yi S. Kanetkar V. (2010). Implicit measures of attitudes toward gambling: an exploratory study. J. Gambl. Issues 24, 140– 163 10.4309/jgi.2010.24.9 · DOI
  98. Zack M. Poulos C. X. (2004). Amphetamine primes motivation to gamble and gambling-related semantic networks in problem gamblers. Neuropsychopharmacology 29, 195– 207 10.1038/sj.npp.1300333 14571257 · DOI
  99. Zelazo P. D. Müller U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development, in Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, ed Goswami U. (Oxford: Blackwell), 445– 469

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 185

Metadata

Authors
Brevers, D., Bechara, A., Cleeremans, A., & Noël, X.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2013
Volume
4
ISSN
1664-1078
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00665
PMC
PMC3786255
Cited by
185
References
23

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