Neuroscience in gambling policy and treatment: an interdisciplinary perspective

Abstract

Neuroscientific explanations of gambling disorder can help people make sense of their experiences and guide the development of psychosocial interventions. However, the societal perceptions and implications of these explanations are not always clear or helpful. Two workshops in 2013 and 2014 brought together multidisciplinary researchers aiming to improve the clinical and policy-related effects of neuroscience research on gambling. The workshops revealed that neuroscience can be used to improve identification of the dangers of products used in gambling. Additionally, there was optimism associated with the diagnostic and prognostic uses of neuroscience in problem gambling and the provision of novel tools (eg, virtual reality) to assess the effectiveness of new policy interventions before their implementation. Other messages from these workshops were that neuroscientific models of decision making could provide a strong rationale for precommitment strategies and that interdisciplinary collaborations are needed to reduce the harms of gambling.

“Losses disguised as wins” in electronic gambling machines contribute to win overestimation in a large online sample

“…The award of small financial gains can be readily used to maintain behaviour on a random ratio schedule of positive reinforcement ( Haw, 2008 ) and LDWs may thereby contribute to the repetitive or extended use of EGMs and associated harm. Regulators seeking to minimise these harms would do well to consider the LDW design feature ( Livingstone et al, 2019 , Yücel et al, 2017 ). LDWs are not a necessary component of EGM design and policymakers could introduce regulation that would eliminate or mitigate the influence of this feature.…”

Increased Striatal Dopamine Synthesis Capacity in Gambling Addiction

“…In particular, it has been proposed that different subtypes of PGs, who gamble for different motives, might be characterized by different underlying brain mechanisms. For example, PGs who gamble to cope with negative affect might be primarily characterized by abnormal functioning of the amygdala circuit, whereas PGs who gamble to enhance positive affect might be primarily characterized by a hyperactive orbitofronto-striatal circuitry (71,72). More research is needed to elucidate the various endophenotypes (including dopamine functioning) underlying pathological gambling subtypes and to assess their validity in research and clinical treatment.…”

Behavioral addictions-a social science perspective

“…But what does this mean? The problems related to claiming addiction to be a brain disease and a good object for neuroscience research is elucidated in a recent piece in The Lancet [14], of which one plausible interpretation is that the fairly large group of authors display evident difficulties in reaching any conclusions that all could agree on. Similarities between behavioral and substance addiction are claimed to be proven with "growing evidence", but from studies comprising 10-17 subjects (and corresponding numbers in control groups).…”