• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在反转学习任务中,决策灵活性与赌博问题严重程度相关,与物质使用障碍诊断无关。

Decision-making inflexibility in a reversal learning task is associated with severity of problem gambling symptoms but not with a diagnosis of substance use disorder.

机构信息

Faculty of Psychology, University of Guayaquil, Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Department of Clinical Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

出版信息

BMC Psychol. 2020 Nov 10;8(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s40359-020-00482-6.

DOI:10.1186/s40359-020-00482-6
PMID:33168098
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7654010/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Decisions made by individuals with disordered gambling are markedly inflexible. However, whether anomalies in learning from feedback are gambling-specific, or extend beyond gambling contexts, remains an open question. More generally, addictive disorders-including gambling disorder-have been proposed to be facilitated by individual differences in feedback-driven decision-making inflexibility, which has been studied in the lab with the Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task (PRLT). In this task, participants are first asked to learn which of two choice options is more advantageous, on the basis of trial-by-trial feedback, but, once preferences are established, reward contingencies are reversed, so that the advantageous option becomes disadvantageous and vice versa. Inflexibility is revealed by a less effective reacquisition of preferences after reversal, which can be distinguished from more generalized learning deficits.

METHODS

In the present study, we compared PRLT performance across two groups of 25 treatment-seeking patients diagnosed with an addictive disorder and who reported gambling problems, and 25 matched controls [18 Males/7 Females in both groups, M(SD) = 25.24 (8.42) and 24.96 (7.90), for patients and controls, respectively]. Beyond testing for differences in the shape of PRLT learning curves across groups, the specific effect of problematic gambling symptoms' severity was also assessed independently of group assignment. In order to surpass previous methodological problems, full acquisition and reacquisition curves were fitted using generalized mixed-effect models.

RESULTS

Results showed that (1) controls did not significantly differ from patients in global PRLT performance nor showed specific signs of decision-making inflexibility; and (2) regardless of whether group affiliation was controlled for or not, gambling severity was specifically associated with more inefficient learning in phases with reversed contingencies.

CONCLUSION

Decision-making inflexibility, as revealed by difficulty to reacquire decisional preferences based on feedback after contingency reversals, seems to be associated with gambling problems, but not necessarily with a substance-use disorder diagnosis. This result aligns with gambling disorder models in which domain-general compulsivity is linked to vulnerability to develop gambling-specific problems with exposure to gambling opportunities.

摘要

背景

有赌博障碍的个体做出的决策明显缺乏灵活性。然而,从反馈中学习的异常是否是赌博特有的,或者是否超出了赌博环境,这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。更一般地说,包括赌博障碍在内的成瘾障碍被认为是由反馈驱动的决策灵活性个体差异所促进的,这已经在实验室的概率反转学习任务(PRLT)中进行了研究。在这个任务中,参与者首先根据试次反馈学习哪个选择选项更有利,但一旦偏好建立,奖励条件就会反转,因此有利选项变得不利,反之亦然。灵活性的表现是反转后偏好的重新获得效果较差,可以与更广泛的学习缺陷区分开来。

方法

在本研究中,我们比较了两组 25 名寻求治疗的患者的 PRLT 表现,这些患者被诊断为成瘾障碍并报告有赌博问题,以及 25 名匹配的对照组[两组中 18 名男性/7 名女性,患者组和对照组的平均值(标准差)分别为 25.24(8.42)和 24.96(7.90)]。除了测试两组之间 PRLT 学习曲线的形状差异外,还独立于组分配评估了问题赌博症状严重程度的特定影响。为了克服先前的方法学问题,使用广义混合效应模型拟合了完整的习得和重新习得曲线。

结果

结果表明,(1)对照组在整体 PRLT 表现上与患者没有显著差异,也没有表现出决策灵活性的特定迹象;(2)无论是否控制组分配,赌博严重程度与反转后基于反馈重新获得决策偏好的效率降低特别相关。

结论

基于反馈反转后重新获得决策偏好的困难而表现出的决策灵活性似乎与赌博问题相关,但不一定与物质使用障碍诊断相关。这一结果与赌博障碍模型一致,即一般领域的强迫性与接触赌博机会后易患特定赌博问题的脆弱性有关。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97e1/7654010/768698ba9a69/40359_2020_482_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97e1/7654010/f1b4186b3cf6/40359_2020_482_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97e1/7654010/768698ba9a69/40359_2020_482_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97e1/7654010/f1b4186b3cf6/40359_2020_482_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97e1/7654010/768698ba9a69/40359_2020_482_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Decision-making inflexibility in a reversal learning task is associated with severity of problem gambling symptoms but not with a diagnosis of substance use disorder.在反转学习任务中,决策灵活性与赌博问题严重程度相关,与物质使用障碍诊断无关。
BMC Psychol. 2020 Nov 10;8(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s40359-020-00482-6.
2
Decision-making (in)flexibility in gambling disorder.赌博障碍中的决策(不)灵活性
Addict Behav. 2021 Jan;112:106534. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106534. Epub 2020 Jul 3.
3
Are methamphetamine users compulsive? Faulty reinforcement learning, not inflexibility, underlies decision making in people with methamphetamine use disorder.甲基苯丙胺使用者是否具有强迫性?在有甲基苯丙胺使用障碍的人群中,决策的基础是错误的强化学习,而不是不灵活性。
Addict Biol. 2021 Jul;26(4):e12999. doi: 10.1111/adb.12999. Epub 2021 Jan 3.
4
Associations of Reversal Learning Performance With Personality Disorder Profile and Drug Abuse History in a Sample of Prison Inmates.监狱服刑人员样本中逆向学习表现与人格障碍类型及药物滥用史的关联
Assessment. 2025 Sep;32(6):921-931. doi: 10.1177/10731911241278307. Epub 2024 Sep 18.
5
Nonmonetary Decision-Making Indices Discriminate Between Different Behavioral Components of Gambling.非货币决策指标可区分赌博的不同行为成分。
J Gambl Stud. 2015 Dec;31(4):1545-60. doi: 10.1007/s10899-014-9482-1.
6
Cognitive Inflexibility in Gamblers is Primarily Present in Reward-Related Decision Making.赌徒的认知灵活性主要表现在与奖励相关的决策制定中。
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Aug 13;8:569. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00569. eCollection 2014.
7
Reward-related attentional capture and cognitive inflexibility interact to determine greater severity of compulsivity-related problems.奖励相关的注意力捕获和认知灵活性相互作用,共同决定了与强迫性问题相关的严重程度更高。
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2020 Dec;69:101580. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2020.101580. Epub 2020 May 1.
8
Reversal learning as a measure of impulsive and compulsive behavior in addictions.作为成瘾中冲动和强迫行为的衡量标准的反转学习。
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2012 Jan;219(2):607-20. doi: 10.1007/s00213-011-2579-7. Epub 2011 Nov 29.
9
Cocaine Dependent Individuals and Gamblers Present Different Associative Learning Anomalies in Feedback-Driven Decision Making: A Behavioral and ERP Study.可卡因依赖者和赌徒在基于反馈的决策中表现出不同的联想学习异常:一项行为和 ERP 研究。
Front Psychol. 2013 Mar 18;4:122. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00122. eCollection 2013.
10
Decision making in adolescents with behavior disorders and adults with substance abuse.患有行为障碍的青少年和患有药物滥用问题的成年人的决策制定。
Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Jan;160(1):33-40. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.33.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessing cognitive flexibility in mice using a custom-built touchscreen chamber.使用定制的触摸屏实验箱评估小鼠的认知灵活性。
Front Behav Neurosci. 2025 Feb 13;19:1536458. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2025.1536458. eCollection 2025.
2
Cognitive influences on biosecurity measure compliance during a global pandemic.全球大流行期间认知对生物安全措施合规性的影响。
Front Psychol. 2024 May 24;15:1306015. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1306015. eCollection 2024.
3
Computational modelling of reinforcement learning and functional neuroimaging of probabilistic reversal for dissociating compulsive behaviours in gambling and cocaine use disorders.

本文引用的文献

1
Decision-making (in)flexibility in gambling disorder.赌博障碍中的决策(不)灵活性
Addict Behav. 2021 Jan;112:106534. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106534. Epub 2020 Jul 3.
2
Individual differences in learning during decision-making may predict specific harms associated with gambling.决策过程中学习的个体差异可能预示着与赌博相关的特定危害。
Addict Behav. 2020 Nov;110:106496. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106496. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
3
The transition to compulsion in addiction.成瘾的强制转变。
强化学习的计算建模与概率反转的功能神经成像,用于区分赌博和可卡因使用障碍中的强迫行为。
BJPsych Open. 2023 Dec 11;10(1):e8. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2023.611.
4
Computational analysis of probabilistic reversal learning deficits in male subjects with alcohol use disorder.酒精使用障碍男性受试者概率性反转学习缺陷的计算分析
Front Psychiatry. 2022 Oct 19;13:960238. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.960238. eCollection 2022.
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2020 May;21(5):247-263. doi: 10.1038/s41583-020-0289-z. Epub 2020 Mar 30.
4
The paradoxical relationship between emotion regulation and gambling-related cognitive biases.情绪调节与赌博相关认知偏差之间的矛盾关系。
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 5;14(8):e0220668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220668. eCollection 2019.
5
Types of Emotion Regulation and Their Associations with Gambling: A Cross-Sectional Study with Disordered and Non-problem Ecuadorian Gamblers.情绪调节类型及其与赌博的关系:一项横断面研究,涉及有问题和无问题的厄瓜多尔赌徒。
J Gambl Stud. 2019 Sep;35(3):997-1013. doi: 10.1007/s10899-019-09868-7.
6
Sequential exploration in the Iowa gambling task: Validation of a new computational model in a large dataset of young and old healthy participants.序贯探索在爱荷华赌博任务中的应用:一种新的计算模型在年轻和老年健康参与者大样本中的验证。
PLoS Comput Biol. 2019 Jun 13;15(6):e1006989. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006989. eCollection 2019 Jun.
7
Extinction of instrumental (operant) learning: interference, varieties of context, and mechanisms of contextual control.工具(操作性)学习的灭绝:干扰、语境的多样性和语境控制的机制。
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2019 Jan;236(1):7-19. doi: 10.1007/s00213-018-5076-4. Epub 2018 Oct 22.
8
A transdiagnostic dimensional approach towards a neuropsychological assessment for addiction: an international Delphi consensus study.一种针对成瘾的神经心理学评估的跨诊断维度方法:一项国际 Delphi 共识研究。
Addiction. 2019 Jun;114(6):1095-1109. doi: 10.1111/add.14424. Epub 2018 Oct 5.
9
Compulsivity-related neurocognitive performance deficits in gambling disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.赌博障碍中与强迫性相关的神经认知表现缺陷:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018 Jan;84:204-217. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.022. Epub 2017 Dec 5.
10
Addiction as a BAD, a Behavioral Allocation Disorder.成瘾是一种 BAD,即行为分配障碍。
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2018 Jan;164:62-70. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2017.05.002. Epub 2017 May 2.