No abstract

The age of attainment for four motor developmental traits, such as turning over, sitting up without support, pulling up to a standing position and walking without support, was examined in 822 children, including 626 siblings from families with 2 to 6 children, 68 pairs of dizygotic twins and 30 pairs of monozygotic twins. Correlation analysis, carried out separately for each type of sibship, showed the highest pairwise correlations in monozygotic twins and the lowest correlation in non-twin siblings for all motor milestones. Variance component analysis was used to decompose the different independent components forming the variation of the studied trait, such as genetic effect, common twin environment, common sib environment and residual factors. The results revealed that the major proportion of the total variance after adjustment for gestation age for the attainment of each motor skill, except pulling up to standing position, is explained by the common twin environment (50.5 to 66.6%), whilst a moderate proportion is explained by additive genetic factors (22.2 to 33.5%). Gestational age was found to be an important predictor of appearance of all motor milestones, affecting delay of 4.5 to 8.6 days for the attainment of the motor abilities for each week of earlier gestation. The age of attainment of the standing position was affected only by shared sibs environment (33.3% of the total variance) and showed no influence of either genetic or common twin environment. Phenotypic between trait correlations were high and significant for all studied traits (range between 0.40 and 0.67, P < 0.01 in all instances). Genetic cross correlations, however, were not easily interpreted and did not show clear variance trends among the different groups of children.

BackgroundAccording to previous studies, one of the common problems of everyday life of persons with tattoos is risky behavior. However, direct examination of the decision making process, as well as factors which determine women’s risk-taking decisions to get tattoos, have not been conducted. This study investigates whether risk taking decision-making is associated with the self-assessment impulsiveness in tattooed women.MethodsYoung women (aged 18–35 years) with (N = 60) and without (N = 60) tattoos, performed the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), as a measure of decision-making processes, as well as completing the Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11).ResultsTattooed women showed significantly higher scores in the BIS-11 and preference for disadvantageous decks on the IGT compared to non-tattooed women. There was no significant correlation between risky decision-making in the IGT and BIS-11 impulsivity measures. A significantly higher rate of smoking was observed in the tattooed women. However, the analysis did not reveal a group effect after adjustment for smoking in the IGT and the BIS-11 measures.ConclusionsThe present study was specifically designed to resolve questions regarding associations between impulsiveness and risky decision-making in tattooed women. It shows that in tattooed women, risky decisions are not a direct result of their self-reported impulsiveness. Smoking does not explain the psychometric differences between tattooed women and controls.

Background: Pathological gambling is classified as an impulse control disorder in the DSM-IV-TR; however, few studies have investigated the relationship between gambling behavior and impulsive decision-making in time-non-limited situations. Methods: The subjects performed the Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT). The MFFT investigated the reflection-impulsivity dimension in pathological gamblers (n = 82) and demographically matched healthy subjects (n = 82).Results:Our study demonstrated that pathological gamblers had a significantly higher rate of errors than healthy controls (p = 0.01) but were not different in terms of response time (p = 0.49). We found a similar power of correlation between the number of errors and response time in both pathological gamblers and controls. We may conclude that impaired performance of our pathological gamblers as compared to controls in a situation without time limit pressure cannot be explained by a trade-off of greater speed at the cost of less accuracy. Conclusions: The results of our study showed that pathological gamblers tend to make more errors but do not exhibit quicker responses as compared to the control group. Diminished MFFT performance in pathological gamblers as compared to controls supports findings of previous studies which show that pathological gamblers have impaired decision-making. Further controlled studies with a larger sample size which examine MFFT performance in pathological gamblers are necessary to confirm our results.

No abstract