ArticleJournal of behavioral addictions2025
Behavioral and computational signatures of reinforcement learning and confidence biases in gambling disorder.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.