Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28447289›Full record

ArticleJournal of gambling studies2018

Electroencephalographic Evidence of Abnormal Anticipatory Uncertainty Processing in Gambling Disorder Patients.

Alberto Megías, Juan F Navas, Ana Perandrés-Gómez, Antonio Maldonado, Andrés Catena, José C Perales

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The gambler's fallacy in problem and non-problem gamblers.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alberto MegíasExperimental Psychology Department, Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain.
Juan F NavasExperimental Psychology Department, Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain. jfnavas@ugr.es.
Ana Perandrés-GómezExperimental Psychology Department, Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain.
Antonio MaldonadoExperimental Psychology Department, Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain.
Andrés CatenaExperimental Psychology Department, Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain.
José C PeralesExperimental Psychology Department, Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain.
Universidad de Granada · ES

Funding

Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte FPU13/00669Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo (ES) RD12/0028/0017Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación PSI2013-45055-PVicerrectorado de Investigación y Transferencia. Universidad de Granada. Programa de Becas de Iniciación a la Investigación para estudiantes de másteres oficiales del Plan Propio de Investigación de la Universidad de Granada, 2016
6 · The paper itself

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

ElectroencephalographyAdultBehavior, AddictiveBrainFemaleGamblingHumansImpulsive BehaviorLearningMaleUncertaintyCausal learningGambling disorderGambling modalitiesImpulsivityStimulus preceding negativityUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID28447289
OpenAlexW2608352857

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.