Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27006113›Full record

Trial reportNeuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology2016

Amplified Striatal Responses to Near-Miss Outcomes in Pathological Gamblers.

Guillaume Sescousse, Lieneke K Janssen, Mahur M Hashemi, Monique H M Timmer, Dirk E M Geurts, Niels P Ter Huurne, Luke Clark, Roshan Cools

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Guillaume SescousseDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Lieneke K JanssenDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mahur M HashemiDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Monique H M TimmerDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Dirk E M GeurtsDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Niels P Ter HuurneDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Luke ClarkDepartment of Psychology, Centre for Gambling Research at UBC, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Roshan CoolsDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLKarakter · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Near-misses in gambling games are losing events that come close to a win. Near-misses were previously shown to recruit reward-related brain regions including the ventral striatum, and to invigorate gambling behavior, supposedly by fostering an illusion of control. Given that pathological gamblers are particularly vulnerable to such cognitive illusions, their persistent gambling behavior might result from an amplified striatal sensitivity to near-misses. In addition, animal studies have shown that behavioral responses to near-miss-like events are sensitive to dopamine, but this dopaminergic influence has not been tested in humans. To investigate these hypotheses, we recruited 22 pathological gamblers and 22 healthy controls who played a slot machine task delivering wins, near-misses and full-misses, inside an fMRI scanner. Each participant played the task twice, once under placebo and once under a dopamine D2 receptor antagonist (sulpiride 400 mg), in a double-blind, counter-balanced design. Participants were asked about their motivation to continue gambling throughout the task. Across all participants, near-misses elicited higher motivation to continue gambling and increased striatal responses compared with full-misses. Crucially, pathological gamblers showed amplified striatal responses to near-misses compared with controls. These group differences were not observed following win outcomes. In contrast to our hypothesis, sulpiride did not induce any reliable modulation of brain responses to near-misses. Together, our results demonstrate that pathological gamblers have amplified brain responses to near-misses, which likely contribute to their persistent gambling behavior. However, there is no evidence that these responses are influenced by dopamine. These results have implications for treatment and gambling regulation.

Indexed as

RewardAdultAnalysis of VarianceAntipsychotic AgentsCorpus StriatumDouble-Blind MethodGamblingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMotivationOxygenSulpirideAntipsychotic AgentsOxygenSulpiride

Identifiers

PMID27006113
PMCPMC4987843
OpenAlexW2311464343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.