Reduced model-based decision-making in gambling disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compulsive behaviors (e.g., addiction) can be viewed as an aberrant decision process where inflexible reactions automatically evoked by stimuli (habit) take control over decision making to the detriment of a more flexible (goal-oriented) behavioral learning system. These behaviors are thought to arise from learning algorithms known as "model-based" and "model-free" reinforcement learning. Gambling disorder, a form of addiction without the confound of neurotoxic effects of drugs, showed impaired goal-directed control but the way in which problem gamblers (PG) orchestrate model-based and model-free strategies has not been evaluated. Forty-nine PG and 33 healthy participants (CP) completed a two-step sequential choice task for which model-based and model-free learning have distinct and identifiable trial-by-trial learning signatures. The influence of common psychopathological comorbidities on those two forms of learning were investigated. PG showed impaired model-based learning, particularly after unrewarded outcomes. In addition, PG exhibited faster reaction times than CP following unrewarded decisions. Troubled mood, higher impulsivity (i.e., positive and negative urgency) and current and chronic stress reported via questionnaires did not account for those results. These findings demonstrate specific reinforcement learning and decision-making deficits in behavioral addiction that advances our understanding and may be important dimensions for designing effective interventions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".