ArticleJournal of gambling studies2018
Electroencephalographic Evidence of Abnormal Anticipatory Uncertainty Processing in Gambling Disorder Patients.
Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neurophysiological and Behavioral Responses to Gambling Cues in Individuals with Internet Gambling Disorder: A VR-EEG-GSR Study.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Resting-state EEG power and machine-learning classification in adult males with gambling disorder.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Reduced neural activity when anticipating social versus nonsocial rewards in schizophrenia: Preliminary evidence from an ERP study.Schizophrenia research · 2022Article
- Towards a Functional Neuromarker of Impulsivity: Feedback-Related Brain Potential during Risky Decision-Making Associated with Self-Reported Impulsivity in a Non-Clinical Sample.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Impulsivity-Compulsivity Axis: Evidence of Its Clinical Validity to Individually Classify Subjects on the Use/Abuse of Information and Communication Technologies.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Gambling-Specific Cognitions Are Not Associated With Either Abstract or Probabilistic Reasoning: A Dual Frequentist-Bayesian Analysis of Individuals With and Without Gambling Disorder.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- The gambler's fallacy in problem and non-problem gamblers.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2019Article
- Reward processing in certain versus uncertain contexts in schizophrenia: An event-related potential (ERP) study.Journal of abnormal psychology · 2019Article
- Hey, what is your choice? Uncertainty and inconsistency enhance subjective anticipation of upcoming information in a social context.Experimental brain research · 2018Article
- Performance on emotional tasks engaging cognitive control depends on emotional intelligence abilities: an ERP study.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Putting money at stake produces anticipatory uncertainty, a process that has been linked to key features of gambling. Here we examined how learning and individual differences modulate the stimulus preceding negativity (SPN, an electroencephalographic signature of perceived uncertainty of valued outcomes) in gambling disorder patients (GDPs) and healthy controls (HCs), during a non-gambling contingency learning task. Twenty-four GDPs and 26 HCs performed a causal learning task under conditions of high and medium uncertainty (HU, MU; null and positive cue-outcome contingency, respectively). Participants were asked to predict the outcome trial-by-trial, and to regularly judge the strength of the cue-outcome contingency. A pre-outcome SPN was extracted from simultaneous electroencephalographic recordings for each participant, uncertainty level, and task block. The two groups similarly learnt to predict the occurrence of the outcome in the presence/absence of the cue. In HCs, SPN amplitude decreased as the outcome became predictable in the MU condition, a decrement that was absent in the HU condition, where the outcome remained unpredictable during the task. Most importantly, GDPs' SPN remained high and insensitive to task type and block. In GDPs, the SPN amplitude was linked to gambling preferences. When both groups were considered together, SPN amplitude was also related to impulsivity. GDPs thus showed an abnormal electrophysiological response to outcome uncertainty, not attributable to faulty contingency learning. Differences with controls were larger in frequent players of passive games, and smaller in players of more active games. Potential psychological mechanisms underlying this set of effects are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.