Trait and neurobiological underpinnings of negative emotion regulation in gambling disorder

Navas, Juan F.; Contreras‐Rodríguez, Oren; Verdejo‐Román, Juan; Perandrés‐Gómez, Ana; Albein‐Urios, Natalia; Verdejo‐García, Antonio; Perales, José C.

doi:10.1111/add.13751

Cited by 71 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our hypothesis for RSA was also informed by an earlier study, in which regular slot machine gamblers with varying levels of disordered gambling showed lower RSA than a student group of novice gamblers (Murch et al, ), although the groups were not demographically comparable in that study. A physiological marker of deficient emotion regulation could have utility in treatment contexts given the potential for unobtrusive and arms‐length monitoring and would concur with other studies employing cognitive and self‐report measures of emotion regulation in gambling disorder (Navas et al, ; Williams et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Substance use disorders, particularly alcohol use disorder, are reliably associated with reductions in RSA (Crowell, Price, Puzia, Yaptangco, & Cheng, ; Quintana, McGregor, Guastella, Malhi, & Kemp, ). Individuals with disordered gambling tend to show deficient emotional regulation on questionnaire measures (Ciccarelli, Nigro, Griffiths, Cosenza, & D’Olimpio, ; Williams, Grisham, Erskine, & Cassedy, ) and neuroimaging probes (Navas et al, ), but existing work has not examined psychophysiological indicators. In a previous study measuring RSA in a group of students and a group of regular slot machine gamblers, resting RSA was noted to be markedly lower in the regular gamblers, who displayed moderate levels of disordered gambling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interoception and respiratory sinus arrhythmia in gambling disorder

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gambling has longstanding links with excitement and physiological arousal, but prior research has not considered (a) gamblers’ ability to detect internal physiological signals, or (b) markers of parasympathetic functioning. The present study measured interoception in individuals with gambling disorder, using self‐report measures and a heartbeat counting task administered at rest. Resting state respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA), an index of heart rate variability, was measured as a proxy for parasympathetic control and emotional regulation capacity. In a case‐control design, 50 individuals with gambling disorder were compared against 35 controls without gambling problems. Participants completed two self‐report measures of bodily awareness and a behavioral test of heartbeat counting. A resting state electrocardiogram (5 min) was used to calculate RSA. There were no significant differences on the self‐report or behavioral interoception probes. The group with gambling disorder displayed significantly reduced RSA, which at face value is consistent with reduced parasympathetic control. However, the group difference in RSA did not survive controlling for age and smoking status, as established predictors of heart rate variability. Our findings do not support any changes in interoceptive processing in people with gambling disorder, at least under resting conditions. Our observation that group differences in RSA are partly explained by smoking behavior highlights the importance of controlling for nicotine use in future research characterizing physiological functioning and emotional regulation in disordered gambling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interoception and respiratory sinus arrhythmia in gambling disorder

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…www.nature.com/scientificreports www.nature.com/scientificreports/ impulsive dimensions and essential GD clinical features, such as cognitive distortions 37,68,69 , gambling choices 70,71 , emotion-regulation impairment 72 , or GD-related illegal acts 34 . Sensation seeking as well as urgency, which appear to be related with GD severity in some studies, including ours 36,38,73 , are strongly associated with emotional factors 74 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dimensions of Impulsivity in Gambling Disorder

Mestre‐Bach

Steward

Granero

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impulsivity is a multidimensional construct. Although gambling disorder (GD) has been associated with high impulsivity, impulsivity across multiple domains has not been thoroughly investigated in this population. We first aimed to examine whether associations between three facets of impulsivity (response impulsivity, choice impulsivity and impulsive tendency) varied between GD patients and healthy controls (HC). We next aimed to evaluate relationships between these three types of impulsivity, as proposed by theoretical models of impulsivity, and their associations with GD severity. The sample included 97 treatment-seeking adult men with GD, diagnosed according to DSM-5 criteria, and 32 male HCs recruited from the general population. Greater impulsivity in all three domains was found in men with GD in comparison to men without GD. Associations between impulsivity facets were found in both groups, with response impulsivity being the only domain associated with GD severity. Our findings confirm that multiple domains of impulsivity are relevant in GD. Future studies should examine the extent to which treatments aimed at targeting specific aspects of impulsivity improve outcomes. Although impulsivity has been proposed as a multifactorial construct 1 , there is still a lack of consensus regarding its definition and the independence of impulsivity domains 2. Impulsivity has been defined as a tendency to respond with little forethought, often with disregard to the negative consequences to the impulsive individual or others 3. Impulsivity has been found to factor into multiple forms, including response and choice forms, that can be measured across species 4-7. While multiple theoretical models have been proposed different types of impulsivity, the proposal by MacKillop et al. 8 is widely used and validated in different populations. This model posits that impulsivity can be partitioned into three main domains: response impulsivity, choice impulsivity and impulsive tendencies. Response impulsivity, also termed impulsive action or motor impulsivity, involves impairments in delaying, withholding or interrupting inappropriate responses 4,9. High levels of this type of impulsivity have been associated with gambling disorder (GD), with GD participants demonstrating differences in response impulsivity in comparison with healthy control (HC) participants 10 , including within treatment-seeking samples 11. Multiple studies suggest gambling severity is positively correlated with motor impulsivity 9,12,13 and one recent meta-analysis found GD to be associated with significant impairments in motor and attentional inhibition 14. Delay discounting relates to impulsive choice and the extent to which an individual prefers a smaller-sooner over a larger-later reward 5,15. In the case of GD, cognitive disturbances related to risk-reward decision making have been reported 16,17 , and individuals with GD tend to discount rewards more steeply than controls 18-21. Increasing evidence supports that people with gambling problems prefer to obtain ...

show abstract

“…Many authors have nonetheless stressed the importance of considering individual differences in its understanding (Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002;MacLaren, Fugelsang, Harrigan, & Dixon, 2011), in view of the fact that individual traits are strong predictors of preference for different gambling modalities (e.g. Navas et al, 2017b;Jiménez-Murcia et al, 2011), GD vulnerability and severity (e.g. Lussier, Derevensky, Gupta, Vitaro, 2014;Nower, Martins, Lin, & Blanco, 2013), and prognosis and response to treatment (Jara-Rizzo et al, 2018; Ramos-Grille, Gomà-i-Freixanet, Aragay, Valero, & Vallès, 2015).…”

Section: A Model To Account For Gamblers' Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%