Priming effects of a slot machine game and amphetamine on probabilistic risk-taking in people with gambling disorder and healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Game of Dice Task (GDT) captures probabilistic risk-taking, which is an important feature of addictions and integral to gambling disorder (GD). No research appears to have assessed effects of gambling-specific priming manipulations or the pharmacological basis of such effects on the GDT. AIMS: To investigate effects of slot machine gambling (Slots) and d-amphetamine (AMPH; 20 mg) on risk-taking in people with GD and healthy controls (HCs) (n = 30/group). The role of dopamine (DA) was assessed by pre-treating participants with the D2 receptor (D2R)-preferring antagonist, haloperidol (HAL; 3-mg) or mixed D1R-D2R antagonist, fluphenazine (FLU; 3-mg). HYPOTHESES: Slots and AMPH will each increase risk-taking based on fewer (less probable) possible outcomes selected (POS) and poorer net monetary outcomes (NMO; gains minus losses) on the GDT, with stronger effects in Group GD. If DA mediates these effects, outcomes will vary with pre-treatment. METHOD: Participants attended a pre-experimental baseline session and 4 test sessions. Antagonist Group (HAL, FLU) was manipulated between-participants. Pre-treatment (antagonist, placebo) was manipulated within-participants and counterbalanced over sessions for Slots and AMPH test phases. Moderator/mediator effects of trait and neuropsychological factors and GD severity (South Oaks Gambling Screen; SOGS) were explored via covariance. RESULTS: AMPH led to an escalation in risky POS over trial blocks in both groups, regardless of pre-treatment. Cognitive inflexibility (high perseveration-proneness) moderated this effect in Group HC. In Group GD, SOGS selectively predicted riskier POS on AMPH sessions. Group GD achieved poorer NMO vs. Group HC on the pre-experimental baseline and Placebo-Slots sessions. Group HC selectively displayed poorer NMO on the Antagonist-Slots session. CONCLUSIONS: The GDT can detect behavioral and pharmacological priming effects. Cognitive inflexibility and symptom severity moderate AMPH-induced risk-taking in HC and GD participants, respectively. Sensitization-related "wanting" of risk may contribute to the latter effect in people with GD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".