Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40478648›Full record

ArticleJournal of behavioral addictions2025

Behavioral and computational signatures of reinforcement learning and confidence biases in gambling disorder.

Monja Hoven, Mael Lebreton, Ruth J van Holst

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Monja Hoven1 Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0900-8565
Mael Lebreton2 CNRS PjSE UMR 8545 & Paris School of Economics, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2071-4890
Ruth J van Holst1 Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1184-9355

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and aims: Gambling Disorder (GD) is associated with maladaptive decision-making, possibly driven by biases in learning and confidence judgments. While prior research report abnormal learning rates and heightened overconfidence in GD, the affected cognitive mechanism producing these joint deficits has so far remained unidentified. Our study aims to fill this gap using a recently established reinforcement learning (RL) experimental and computational framework linking learning processes, outcome-valence effects and confidence judgments. Methods: We pre-registered and tested the hypotheses that GD patients exhibit increased (over)confidence and confirmatory learning bias, and increased outcome valence effects on choice accuracy and confidence judgements in in 18 participants with GD and 19 matched controls. Results: While our findings replicated the main behavioral patterns of choices and confidence judgments, and confirmed their computational foundations, we did not find any group differences between the controls and patients with GD. Discussion and Conclusions: The current findings speak to the inconsistent findings of abnormalities in confidence and learning in GD. Systematic research is necessary to better understand the influence of possibly mediating factors such as disorder-related idiosyncrasies (e.g. skill- vs chance-based preferences) to further clarify if, when and how confidence and learning are affected in people with GD.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorGamblingJudgmentMetacognitionReinforcement, PsychologyAdultCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedconfidencegambling disorderreinforcement learningvalue

Identifiers

PMID40478648
PMCPMC12231445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.