Literature DB >> 11992657

Decision-making and addiction (part II): myopia for the future or hypersensitivity to reward?

Antoine Bechara1, Sara Dolan, Andrea Hindes.   

Abstract

On a decision-making instrument known as the "gambling task" (GT), a subgroup of substance dependent individuals (SDI) opted for choices that yield high immediate gains in spite of higher future losses. This resembles the behavior of patients with ventromedial (VM) prefrontal cortex lesions. In this study, we addressed the possibility that hypersensitivity to reward may account for the "myopia" for the future in this subgroup of SDI. We used a variant version of the GT, in which the good decks yielded high immediate punishment but higher delayed reward. The bad decks yielded low immediate punishment and lower delayed reward. We measured the skin conductance response (SCR) of subjects after receiving reward (reward SCR) and during their pondering from which deck to choose (anticipatory SCR). A subgroup of SDI who was not impaired on the original GT performed normally on the variant GT. The subgroup of SDI who was impaired on the original GT showed two levels of performance on the variant GT. One subgroup (36% of the sample) performed poorly on the variant GT, and showed similar behavioral and physiological impairments to VM patients. The other subgroup of SDI (64% of the sample) performed normally on the variant task, but had abnormally large physiological responses to reward, i.e. large SCR after receiving reward (reward SCR) and large SCR in anticipation of outcomes that yield large reward. Thus, the combined cognitive and physiological approach of assessing decision-making characterizes three sub-populations of SDI. One sub-population is without impairments that can be detected by any measure of the GT paradigm. Another sub-population is similar to VM patients in that they are insensitive to the future, both positive and negative. A third sub-population is hypersensitive to reward, so that the presence or the prospect of receiving, reward dominates their behavior.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11992657     DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00016-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  180 in total

1.  Negative reinforcement learning is affected in substance dependence.

Authors:  Laetitia L Thompson; Eric D Claus; Susan K Mikulich-Gilbertson; Marie T Banich; Thomas Crowley; Theodore Krmpotich; David Miller; Jody Tanabe
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 4.492

2.  Working memory and decision-making biases in young adults with a family history of alcoholism: studies from the Oklahoma family health patterns project.

Authors:  William R Lovallo; Eldad Yechiam; Kristen H Sorocco; Andrea S Vincent; Frank L Collins
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.455

Review 3.  Clinical implications and methodological challenges in the study of the neuropsychological correlates of cannabis, stimulant, and opioid abuse.

Authors:  Antonio Verdejo-García; Francisca López-Torrecillas; Carmen Orozco Giménez; Miguel Pérez-García
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 7.444

4.  Components of working memory and somatic markers in decision making.

Authors:  Tina L Jameson; John M Hinson; Paul Whitney
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-06

5.  Neural correlates of pathological gamblers preference for immediate rewards during the iowa gambling task: an fMRI study.

Authors:  Yuri Power; Bradley Goodyear; David Crockford
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2012-12

6.  Profiles of executive functioning: associations with substance dependence and risky sexual behavior.

Authors:  Sarit A Golub; Tyrel J Starks; William J Kowalczyk; Louisa I Thompson; Jeffrey T Parsons
Journal:  Psychol Addict Behav       Date:  2012-07-09

7.  Individuals family history positive for alcoholism show functional magnetic resonance imaging differences in reward sensitivity that are related to impulsivity factors.

Authors:  Melissa M Andrews; Shashwath A Meda; Andre D Thomas; Marc N Potenza; John H Krystal; Patrick Worhunsky; Michael C Stevens; Stephanie O'Malley; Gregory A Book; Brady Reynolds; Godfrey D Pearlson
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 13.382

8.  Punishing an error improves learning: the influence of punishment magnitude on error-related neural activity and subsequent learning.

Authors:  Robert Hester; Kevin Murphy; Felicity L Brown; Ashley J Skilleter
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-11-17       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Somatic markers, working memory, and decision making.

Authors:  John M Hinson; Tina L Jameson; Paul Whitney
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.282

10.  The C957T polymorphism in the dopamine receptor D₂ gene modulates domain-general category learning.

Authors:  Zilong Xie; W Todd Maddox; John E McGeary; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.