Ricardo J Romeu1, Nathaniel Haines2, Woo-Young Ahn3, Jerome R Busemeyer4, Jasmin Vassileva5. 1. Indiana University Bloomington, Psychological and Brain Sciences, 1101 E 10thSt., Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. Electronic address: ricromeu@iu.edu. 2. The Ohio State University, Psychology Department, 1835 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. 3. Seoul National University, Department of Psychology, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea. 4. Indiana University Bloomington, Psychological and Brain Sciences, 1101 E 10thSt., Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. 5. Virginia Commonwealth University, Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies, 203 East Cary Street, P.O. box 980059, Richmond, VA, 23298-0059, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impulsivity is central to all forms of externalizing psychopathology, including problematic substance use. The Cambridge Gambling task (CGT) is a popular neurocognitive task used to assess impulsivity in both clinical and healthy populations. However, the traditional methods of analysis in the CGT do not fully capture the multiple cognitive mechanisms that give rise to impulsive behavior, which can lead to underpowered and difficult-to-interpret behavioral measures. OBJECTIVES: The current study presents the cognitive modeling approach as an alternative to traditional methods and assesses predictive and convergent validity across and between approaches. METHODS: We used hierarchical Bayesian modeling to fit a series of cognitive models to data from healthy controls (N = 124) and individuals with histories of substance use disorders (Heroin: N = 79; Amphetamine: N = 76; Polysubstance: N = 103; final total across groups N = 382). Using Bayesian model comparison, we identified the best fitting model, which was then used to identify differences in cognitive model parameters between groups. RESULTS: The cognitive modeling approach revealed differences in quality of decision making and impulsivity between controls and individuals with substance use disorders that traditional methods alone did not detect. Crucially, convergent validity between traditional measures and cognitive model parameters was strong across all groups. CONCLUSION: The cognitive modeling approach is a viable method of measuring the latent mechanisms that give rise to choice behavior in the CGT, which allows for stronger statistical inferences and a better understanding of impulsive and risk-seeking behavior.
BACKGROUND:Impulsivity is central to all forms of externalizing psychopathology, including problematic substance use. The Cambridge Gambling task (CGT) is a popular neurocognitive task used to assess impulsivity in both clinical and healthy populations. However, the traditional methods of analysis in the CGT do not fully capture the multiple cognitive mechanisms that give rise to impulsive behavior, which can lead to underpowered and difficult-to-interpret behavioral measures. OBJECTIVES: The current study presents the cognitive modeling approach as an alternative to traditional methods and assesses predictive and convergent validity across and between approaches. METHODS: We used hierarchical Bayesian modeling to fit a series of cognitive models to data from healthy controls (N = 124) and individuals with histories of substance use disorders (Heroin: N = 79; Amphetamine: N = 76; Polysubstance: N = 103; final total across groups N = 382). Using Bayesian model comparison, we identified the best fitting model, which was then used to identify differences in cognitive model parameters between groups. RESULTS: The cognitive modeling approach revealed differences in quality of decision making and impulsivity between controls and individuals with substance use disorders that traditional methods alone did not detect. Crucially, convergent validity between traditional measures and cognitive model parameters was strong across all groups. CONCLUSION: The cognitive modeling approach is a viable method of measuring the latent mechanisms that give rise to choice behavior in the CGT, which allows for stronger statistical inferences and a better understanding of impulsive and risk-seeking behavior.
Authors: Marta Czapla; Joe J Simon; Barbara Richter; Matthias Kluge; Hans-Christoph Friederich; Stephan Herpertz; Karl Mann; Sabine C Herpertz; Sabine Loeber Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Brandon M Turner; Christian A Rodriguez; Qingfang Liu; M Fiona Molloy; Marjolein Hoogendijk; Samuel M McClure Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: R D Rogers; B J Everitt; A Baldacchino; A J Blackshaw; R Swainson; K Wynne; N B Baker; J Hunter; T Carthy; E Booker; M London; J F Deakin; B J Sahakian; T W Robbins Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Stefanie Todesco; Thomas Chao; Laura Schmid; Karina A Thiessen; Christian G Schütz Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 4.157