Leppink Eric W, Redden Sarah A, Chamberlain Samuel R, Grant Jon E
University of Chicago, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5841 S. Maryland Ave., MC3077, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Herchel Smith Building, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SZ, UK; Cambridge and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT), Cambridge Road, Fulbourne, Cambridge, CB21 5HH, UK.
J Psychiatr Res. 2016 Oct;81:9-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.06.010. Epub 2016 Jun 16.
Although gambling disorder (GD) is often characterized as a problem of impulsivity, compulsivity has recently been proposed as a potentially important feature of addictive disorders. The present analysis assessed the neurocognitive and clinical relationship between compulsivity on gambling behavior. A sample of 552 non-treatment seeking gamblers age 18-29 was recruited from the community for a study on gambling in young adults. Gambling severity levels included both casual and disordered gamblers. All participants completed the Intra/Extra-Dimensional Set Shift (IED) task, from which the total adjusted errors were correlated with gambling severity measures, and linear regression modeling was used to assess three error measures from the task. The present analysis found significant positive correlations between problems with cognitive flexibility and gambling severity (reflected by the number of DSM-5 criteria, gambling frequency, amount of money lost in the past year, and gambling urge/behavior severity). IED errors also showed a positive correlation with self-reported compulsive behavior scores. A significant correlation was also found between IED errors and non-planning impulsivity from the BIS. Linear regression models based on total IED errors, extra-dimensional (ED) shift errors, or pre-ED shift errors indicated that these factors accounted for a significant portion of the variance noted in several variables. These findings suggest that cognitive flexibility may be an important consideration in the assessment of gamblers. Results from correlational and linear regression analyses support this possibility, but the exact contributions of both impulsivity and cognitive flexibility remain entangled. Future studies will ideally be able to assess the longitudinal relationships between gambling, compulsivity, and impulsivity, helping to clarify the relative contributions of both impulsive and compulsive features.
尽管赌博障碍(GD)通常被视为一种冲动性问题,但最近有人提出强迫性是成瘾性障碍的一个潜在重要特征。本分析评估了强迫性与赌博行为之间的神经认知和临床关系。从社区招募了552名年龄在18 - 29岁、未寻求治疗的赌徒样本,用于一项关于年轻人赌博的研究。赌博严重程度水平包括偶尔赌博者和有赌博障碍者。所有参与者都完成了维度内/维度间转换任务(IED),从中将总调整错误与赌博严重程度指标进行相关分析,并使用线性回归模型来评估该任务的三个错误指标。本分析发现认知灵活性问题与赌博严重程度之间存在显著正相关(由DSM - 5标准数量、赌博频率、过去一年输钱金额以及赌博冲动/行为严重程度反映)。IED错误也与自我报告的强迫行为得分呈正相关。IED错误与BIS中的非计划性冲动性之间也发现了显著相关性。基于总IED错误、维度间(ED)转换错误或ED转换前错误的线性回归模型表明,这些因素在几个变量中占了显著部分的方差。这些发现表明,认知灵活性可能是评估赌徒时的一个重要考量因素。相关分析和线性回归分析的结果支持了这种可能性,但冲动性和认知灵活性的确切作用仍相互交织。未来的研究理想情况下将能够评估赌博、强迫性和冲动性之间的纵向关系,有助于阐明冲动性和强迫性特征的相对作用。