SY38-4 * THE ROLE OF NEAR-MISSES OUTCOMES AND INHIBITION LINKED TO PERSISTENCE IN A SIMULATED SLOT MACHINE TASK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is established that gambling "near-miss" outcomes (i.e. losing narrowly in a game of chance) promote persistent play. Although there have been recent advances in understanding the neurobiological responses to gambling near-misses, the psychological mechanisms involved in these events remain unclear. Recently, it has been shown (by using a laboratory slot machine task to deliver wins, near-misses and losses) that near-misses were more frequently perceived by problematic gamblers as an indicator of a future success (Clark et al., 2009). While impaired inhibition is implicated in case-control studies in pathological gambling, no studies have examined how inhibitory capacities moderate gambling behavior. In the current study, gamblers from the community played to a slot machine task which experimentally manipulate the delivering of win, miss, and near miss outcomes, and which comprises a non-mandatory extinction phase displaying only miss and near-miss outcomes. Participants were also tested with a stop-signal paradigm assessing prepotent response inhibition. The main findings of the studies are that (1) poor inhibition predicts persistence under extinction and (2) higher self-reported desire to play again both win and near-miss outcomes. This study for the first time highlighted the role of prepotent response inhibition in persistence ("chasing" behaviors) in simulated gambling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".