Neurophysiological Correlates of Near-Wins in Gambling: A Systematic Literature Review.

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Artemisa Rocha Dores, Miguel Peixoto, Carina Fernandes, Andreia Geraldo, Mark D Griffiths, Fernando Barbosa
{"title":"Neurophysiological Correlates of Near-Wins in Gambling: A Systematic Literature Review.","authors":"Artemisa Rocha Dores, Miguel Peixoto, Carina Fernandes, Andreia Geraldo, Mark D Griffiths, Fernando Barbosa","doi":"10.1007/s10899-024-10327-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Identification of specific patterns of brain activity related to problem gambling may provide a deeper understanding of its underlying mechanisms, highlighting the importance of neurophysiological studies to better understand development and persistence of gambling behavior. The patterns of cognitive functioning have been investigated through electroencephalography (EEG) studies based on the near-win/near-miss (NW) effect. The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the neurophysiological basis of NWs and their modulation by gambling problems through a systematic review of event-related potentials (ERP) studies elicited by feedback events. The review followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA). A total of 15 studies were included, 12 comprising non-problem gamblers (NPGs) and three comparing problem gamblers (PGs) with matched controls. For the P300 component, the win outcome elicited a larger amplitude than the other outcomes (NW and loss), followed by the NW outcome, which elicited a larger amplitude than loss in some studies. For feedback-related negativity (FRN), the loss outcome evoked a more negative amplitude in several studies, despite eliciting a similar amplitude to NW outcomes in others. For PGs, the NW outcome evoked a higher amplitude of P300 than loss, while NPGs showed a similar amplitude to both outcomes. The present review gathered information from different sources and provides a consistent view of the different studies. However, studies lack systematic and robust methodologies, leading to inconsistent results and making it difficult to reach any definitive conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48155,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gambling Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gambling Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-024-10327-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Identification of specific patterns of brain activity related to problem gambling may provide a deeper understanding of its underlying mechanisms, highlighting the importance of neurophysiological studies to better understand development and persistence of gambling behavior. The patterns of cognitive functioning have been investigated through electroencephalography (EEG) studies based on the near-win/near-miss (NW) effect. The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the neurophysiological basis of NWs and their modulation by gambling problems through a systematic review of event-related potentials (ERP) studies elicited by feedback events. The review followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA). A total of 15 studies were included, 12 comprising non-problem gamblers (NPGs) and three comparing problem gamblers (PGs) with matched controls. For the P300 component, the win outcome elicited a larger amplitude than the other outcomes (NW and loss), followed by the NW outcome, which elicited a larger amplitude than loss in some studies. For feedback-related negativity (FRN), the loss outcome evoked a more negative amplitude in several studies, despite eliciting a similar amplitude to NW outcomes in others. For PGs, the NW outcome evoked a higher amplitude of P300 than loss, while NPGs showed a similar amplitude to both outcomes. The present review gathered information from different sources and provides a consistent view of the different studies. However, studies lack systematic and robust methodologies, leading to inconsistent results and making it difficult to reach any definitive conclusions.

Abstract Image

赌博中险胜的神经生理学相关因素:系统性文献综述。
确定与问题赌博有关的特定大脑活动模式,可加深对其潜在机制的理解,从而突出神经生理学研究对更好地理解赌博行为的发展和持续性的重要性。基于近胜/近失(NW)效应的脑电图(EEG)研究对认知功能的模式进行了调查。本研究的主要目的是通过对反馈事件引发的事件相关电位(ERP)研究进行系统回顾,评估NW的神经生理学基础及其对赌博问题的调节作用。综述遵循了《系统综述和元分析协议首选报告项目》(PRISMA)的建议。共纳入 15 项研究,其中 12 项包括非问题赌徒(NPGs),3 项比较了问题赌徒(PGs)和匹配对照组。在 P300 分量中,赢的结果比其他结果(NW 和输)引起的振幅大,其次是 NW 结果,在一些研究中,赢的结果比输的结果引起的振幅大。就反馈相关负性(FRN)而言,在一些研究中,损失结果引起的负性振幅更大,尽管在另一些研究中,损失结果引起的振幅与 NW 结果相似。就 PGs 而言,NW 结果引起的 P300 振幅高于丢失结果,而 NPGs 则与这两种结果的振幅相似。本综述收集了不同来源的信息,并对不同研究提供了一致的看法。然而,这些研究缺乏系统和可靠的方法,导致结果不一致,难以得出任何明确的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: Journal of Gambling Studies is an interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination on the many aspects of gambling behavior, both controlled and pathological, as well as variety of problems attendant to, or resultant from, gambling behavior including alcoholism, suicide, crime, and a number of other mental health problems. Articles published in this journal are representative of a cross-section of disciplines including psychiatry, psychology, sociology, political science, criminology, and social work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信