Risk-taking decisions in pathological gamblers is not a result of their impaired inhibition ability

Abstract This work investigates whether inhibition impairments influence the decision making process in pathological gamblers (PGs). The PG ( N = 51) subjects performed the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT as the measure of the decision making process) and two tests of inhibition: the Stroop (interference in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychiatry research 2011-06, Vol.188 (1), p.71-77
Main Authors: Kertzman, Semion, Lidogoster, Helena, Aizer, Anat, Kotler, Moshe, Dannon, Pinhas N
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Adult and adolescent clinical studies
Biological and medical sciences
Decision Making - physiology
Errors
Female
Gambling - physiopathology
Humans
IGT
Impulsivity
Inhibition (Psychology)
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Miscellaneous
Multivariate Analysis
Neuropsychological Tests
Pathological gamblers
Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Response time
Risk-Taking
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract This work investigates whether inhibition impairments influence the decision making process in pathological gamblers (PGs). The PG ( N = 51) subjects performed the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT as the measure of the decision making process) and two tests of inhibition: the Stroop (interference inhibition), and the Go/NoGo (response inhibition), and were compared with demographically matched healthy subjects ( N = 57). Performance in the IGT block 1 and block 2 did not differ between the groups, but the differences between the PGs and healthy controls began to be significant in block 3, block 4 and block 5. PGs learned the IGT task more slowly than the healthy controls and had non-optimal outcomes (more disadvantageous choices). Impaired IGT performance in PGs was not related to an inhibition ability measured by the Stroop (interference response time) and the Go/NoGo (number of commission errors) parameters. Further controlled studies with neuroimaging techniques may help to clarify the particular brain mechanisms underlying the impaired decision making process in PGs.
ISSN:0165-1781
1872-7123
DOI:10.1016/j.psychres.2011.02.021