Review
BibTex RIS Cite

PATOLOJİK KUMAR BAGIMLILIGINDA DAVRANIŞSAL İNHİBİSYON

Year 2017, , 0 - 0, 07.09.2017

Gürler Güz Hatice Özyıldız Güz

https://doi.org/10.5455/car.105-1514922351

Abstract

Kumar oynama bozukluğu DSM-5 ile birlikte, dürtü kontrol bozukluklarından çıkarılmış, madde ve ilişkili bozukluklar, başlığına alınmıştır. Madde kullanım bozukluklarında görülen ödül ve ceza sistemlerinde hatalı işlemelerin kumar oynama bozukluklarında da görülmesi, bu değişiklikteki nedenlerden biridir. Patolojik kumar bağımlılığının gelişmesinde ve sürdürülmesinde dürtüsellikten çok, davranışı inhibe edememenin önemli rolü olduğu gösterilmiştir. Baskılamada gecikme olması yürütücü işlevlerden biridir ve özellikle prefrontal bölge disfonksiyonuna bağlıdır, Bu nedenle araştırmalar, kumar oynayanlarda bu bağlamda beyin fonksiyonlarını da incelemiştir. Bu derlemede, patolojik kumar oynama bozukluğunda dürtüselliğin yeri, kumar davranışını inhibe edememe (durduramama) ile ilgili çalışmalara ve davranışı durduramamayı etkileyen nedenlere yer verilecektir.

Keywords

Kumar bağımlılığı davranış inhibisyon

References

  • 1. Atkinson J, Sharp C, Schmitz J, Yaroslavsky 1. Behavioral Activation and Inhibition, Negative Affect, and Gambling Severity in a Sample of Young Adult College Students. J Gambl Stud 2012; 28:437-49.
  • 2. Christensen DR,Dowling NA, Cowlishaw S, Jackson AC, Merkouris SS, Francis KL. Prevalence of psychiatric co-morbidity in treatment-seeking problem gamblers: A systematic review and meta-analysis; Aust N Z J Psychiatry.2015; 49(6):519-39.
  • 3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC.2000.
  • 4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC. 2013.
  • 5. Güleç G, Köşger F. DSM-5'te Alkol ve Madde Kullanım Bozuklukları; Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar-Current Approaches in Psychiatry 2015;7(4):448-60.
  • 6. Kalyoncu ÖA, Pektaş Ö, Mırsal H. Patolojik kumar oynama: Biyopsikososyal yaklaşım. Bağımlılık Dergisi 2003; 4(2):76-80.
  • 7. Rubia K, Russell T, Overmeyer S, Brammer MJ, Bullmore ET, et al. Mapping motor inhibition: conjunctive brain activations across different versions of go/no-go and stop tasks. Neuroimage 2001; 13: 250-61.
  • 8. Watanabe J, Sugiura M, Sato K, Sato Y, Maeda Y, et al. The human prefrontal and parietal association cortices are involved in NO-GO performances: an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 2002; 17: 1207-16.
  • 9. Lawrence AJ, Luty J . lmpulsivity and response inhibition in alcohol dependence and problem gambling. Psychopharmacology, 2009;207: 163-72.
  • 10. Yazıcı K, Yazıcı A. Dürtüselliğin Nöroanatomik ve Nörokimyasal Temelleri. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar 2010;2(2):254-80.
  • 11. Keough MT, Wardell J Hendershot CS, Bagby RM, Quilty LC. Fun Seeking and Reward Responsiveness Moderate the Effect of the Behavioural Inhibition System on Coping-Motivated Problem Gambling. J Gambl Stud 2017 Sep;33(3):769-82.
  • 12. Johnson, S. L., Turner, R. J., & Iwata, N. BIS/BAS levels and psychiatric disorder: An epidemiological study. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,2003; 25(1), 25-36.
  • 13. Rahman AS, Xu J. Hippocampal and Amygdalar Volumetric Differences in Pathological Gambling: a Preliminary Study of the Associations with the Behavioral Inhibition System; Neuropsychopharmacology 2014;39, 738-45.
  • 14. Baughman F.D, Cooper RP. Inhibition and young children's performance on the Tower of London task. Cognitive Systems Research, 2007;8: 216-26.
  • 15. Smith JL, Mattick RP, Jamadar SD. Defıcits in behavioural inhibition in substance abuse and addiction: a meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014; 1; 14 5: 1-3 3.
  • 16. Baarendse PJ, Counatte DS. Early social experience is critical for the development of cognitive control and dopamine modulation of prefrontal cortex function. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013; 38(8): 1485-94.
  • 17. Leppink EW, Redden SA. Cognitive flexibility correlates with gambling severity in young adults, J Psychiatr Res.2016; 81:9-15.
  • 18. Potenza MN, Leung HC, Blumberg HP, Peterson BS, Fulbright RK, et al. An FMRI Stroop task study of ventromedial prefrontal cortical function in pathological gamblers. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160(11): 1990-4.
  • 19. Van Holst RJ, Van Holstein M, Van den Brink W, Veltman DJ, Goudriaan AE. Response Inhibition during Cue Reactivity in Problem Gamblers: An fMRI Study. PLoS ONE 7(3): e30909. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0030909
  • 20. Balconi M, Finocchiaro R. Reward bias and lateralization in gambling behavior: behavioral activation system and alpha band analysis; Psychiatry Research 20 l 4;219:570-76.
  • 21. Potenza MN. The neural bases of cognitive processes in gambling disorder; Cogn Sci. 2014; 18(8):429-38.
  • 22. Navas J. Torres A. Nonmonetary Decision-Making Indices Discriminate Between Different Behavioral Components of Gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2015;3 l: 1545- 60.
  • 23. Boog M, Höppener P. Cognitive Inflexibility in Gamblers is Primarily Present in Reward-Related Decision Making. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 13;8:569.
  • 24. Yang Y, Zhong X. Positive association between trait impulsivity and high gambling-related cognitive biases among college students. Psychiatry Res. 2016;30;243:71-4.
  • 25. Parke A, Harris A. Understanding Within-Session Loss-Chasing: An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Stake Size on Cognitive Control. J Gambl Study2016; 32:721-35.
  • 26. Balconi M, Finocchiaro R. Reward Sensitivity (Behavioral Activation System), Cognitive, and Metacognitive Control in Gambling Behavior: Evidences From Behavioral, Feedback­Related Negativity, and P300 Effect; J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2015;27(3):219-27.
  • 27. Wardell JD, Quilty LC. Motivational pathways from reward sensitivity and punishment sensitivity to gambling frequency and gambling-related problems. Psychol Addict Behav. 2015; 29(4): 1022-30.
  • 28. Grant J, Chamberlain SR. Impulsive action and impulsive choice across substance and behavioral addictions: Cause or consequence? Addictive Behaviors 2014;39: 1632-39.
  • 29. Leiserson V, Pihl O. Reward-Sensitivity, Inhibition of Reward-Seeking, and Dorsolateral Prefrontal Working Memory Function in Problem Gamblers not in Treatment; J Gambl Stud. 2007;23:435-55.
  • 30. Kertzman S, Lowengrub K. Go-no-go performance in pathological gamblers. Psychiatry Res. 2008; 30; 161 (1): 1- 10.
  • 31. Hong X, Zheng L. Impaired Decision Making is Associated with Poor Inhibition Control in Nonpathological Lottery Gamblers; J Gambl Stud 2015; 31:1617-32.
  • 32. Goudriaan, A., E., Oosterlaan,. Neurocognitive functions in pathological gambling: A comparison with alcohol dependence, Tourette syndrome and normal controls. Addiction, 2006;101, 534-47.
  • 33. Kraplin A, Bühringer G. Dimensions and disorder specifıcity of impulsivity in pathological gambling, Addictive Behaviors. 2014;. 39 1646-51.
  • 34. Stevens T, Brevers D. How Does Response Inhibition Influence Decision Making When Gambling?; Journal of Experimental Psychology 2015; l, 15-36.
  • 35. Odlaug BL, Chamberlain S. A neurocognitive comparison of cognitive flexibiliry and response inhibition in gamblers with varying degrees of clinical Severity. Psychol Med. 2011;41(10): 2111-19.
  • 36. Quilty LC, Watson C. The prevalence and course of pathological gambling in the mood disorders; J Gambl Stud.2011;27(2):191-201.
  • 37. Lang PJ, Bradley MM. Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. Biol Psychiatry. 1998; 15;44(12): 1248-63.
  • 38. Cavedini, P., Riboldi, G., Keller, R., D'Annucci, A., & Bellodi, L. Frontal lobe dysfunction in pathological gambling patients. Biological Psychiatry,2002; 51, 334- 41.
  • 39. Dannon PN, Shoenfeld N. Pathological gambling: an impulse control disorder? Measurement of impulsivity using neurocognitive tests. Isr Med Assoc J .201 O; 12(4):243-8.
  • 40. Ren Y, Fang J, Lv J. Assessing the effects of cocaine dependence and pathological gambling using group-wise sparse representation of natura! stimulus FMRI data. Brain Imaging and Behaviour. 2017; 11 ( 4): 1179-91.
  • 41. Yip SW, Lacadie C, Xu J, Worhunsky PO, Fulbright RK, Constable RT, Potenza MN. Reduced genual corpus callosal white matter integrity in pathological gambling and its relationship to alcohol abuse or dependence. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2013;14(2):129-38.
  • 42. Brevers D, Cleeremans A, Verbruggen F. Impulsive action but not impulsive choice determines problem gambling severity. 2012;7(1 l):e50647. https://doi. org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0050647.
  • 43. Ledgerwood, DM, Orr OS et al. Executive Function in Pathological Gamblers and Healthy Controls; J Gambl Stud. 2012;28:89-103.

Year 2017, , 0 - 0, 07.09.2017

Gürler Güz Hatice Özyıldız Güz

https://doi.org/10.5455/car.105-1514922351

Abstract

References

  • 1. Atkinson J, Sharp C, Schmitz J, Yaroslavsky 1. Behavioral Activation and Inhibition, Negative Affect, and Gambling Severity in a Sample of Young Adult College Students. J Gambl Stud 2012; 28:437-49.
  • 2. Christensen DR,Dowling NA, Cowlishaw S, Jackson AC, Merkouris SS, Francis KL. Prevalence of psychiatric co-morbidity in treatment-seeking problem gamblers: A systematic review and meta-analysis; Aust N Z J Psychiatry.2015; 49(6):519-39.
  • 3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC.2000.
  • 4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC. 2013.
  • 5. Güleç G, Köşger F. DSM-5'te Alkol ve Madde Kullanım Bozuklukları; Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar-Current Approaches in Psychiatry 2015;7(4):448-60.
  • 6. Kalyoncu ÖA, Pektaş Ö, Mırsal H. Patolojik kumar oynama: Biyopsikososyal yaklaşım. Bağımlılık Dergisi 2003; 4(2):76-80.
  • 7. Rubia K, Russell T, Overmeyer S, Brammer MJ, Bullmore ET, et al. Mapping motor inhibition: conjunctive brain activations across different versions of go/no-go and stop tasks. Neuroimage 2001; 13: 250-61.
  • 8. Watanabe J, Sugiura M, Sato K, Sato Y, Maeda Y, et al. The human prefrontal and parietal association cortices are involved in NO-GO performances: an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 2002; 17: 1207-16.
  • 9. Lawrence AJ, Luty J . lmpulsivity and response inhibition in alcohol dependence and problem gambling. Psychopharmacology, 2009;207: 163-72.
  • 10. Yazıcı K, Yazıcı A. Dürtüselliğin Nöroanatomik ve Nörokimyasal Temelleri. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar 2010;2(2):254-80.
  • 11. Keough MT, Wardell J Hendershot CS, Bagby RM, Quilty LC. Fun Seeking and Reward Responsiveness Moderate the Effect of the Behavioural Inhibition System on Coping-Motivated Problem Gambling. J Gambl Stud 2017 Sep;33(3):769-82.
  • 12. Johnson, S. L., Turner, R. J., & Iwata, N. BIS/BAS levels and psychiatric disorder: An epidemiological study. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,2003; 25(1), 25-36.
  • 13. Rahman AS, Xu J. Hippocampal and Amygdalar Volumetric Differences in Pathological Gambling: a Preliminary Study of the Associations with the Behavioral Inhibition System; Neuropsychopharmacology 2014;39, 738-45.
  • 14. Baughman F.D, Cooper RP. Inhibition and young children's performance on the Tower of London task. Cognitive Systems Research, 2007;8: 216-26.
  • 15. Smith JL, Mattick RP, Jamadar SD. Defıcits in behavioural inhibition in substance abuse and addiction: a meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014; 1; 14 5: 1-3 3.
  • 16. Baarendse PJ, Counatte DS. Early social experience is critical for the development of cognitive control and dopamine modulation of prefrontal cortex function. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013; 38(8): 1485-94.
  • 17. Leppink EW, Redden SA. Cognitive flexibility correlates with gambling severity in young adults, J Psychiatr Res.2016; 81:9-15.
  • 18. Potenza MN, Leung HC, Blumberg HP, Peterson BS, Fulbright RK, et al. An FMRI Stroop task study of ventromedial prefrontal cortical function in pathological gamblers. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160(11): 1990-4.
  • 19. Van Holst RJ, Van Holstein M, Van den Brink W, Veltman DJ, Goudriaan AE. Response Inhibition during Cue Reactivity in Problem Gamblers: An fMRI Study. PLoS ONE 7(3): e30909. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0030909
  • 20. Balconi M, Finocchiaro R. Reward bias and lateralization in gambling behavior: behavioral activation system and alpha band analysis; Psychiatry Research 20 l 4;219:570-76.
  • 21. Potenza MN. The neural bases of cognitive processes in gambling disorder; Cogn Sci. 2014; 18(8):429-38.
  • 22. Navas J. Torres A. Nonmonetary Decision-Making Indices Discriminate Between Different Behavioral Components of Gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2015;3 l: 1545- 60.
  • 23. Boog M, Höppener P. Cognitive Inflexibility in Gamblers is Primarily Present in Reward-Related Decision Making. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 13;8:569.
  • 24. Yang Y, Zhong X. Positive association between trait impulsivity and high gambling-related cognitive biases among college students. Psychiatry Res. 2016;30;243:71-4.
  • 25. Parke A, Harris A. Understanding Within-Session Loss-Chasing: An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Stake Size on Cognitive Control. J Gambl Study2016; 32:721-35.
  • 26. Balconi M, Finocchiaro R. Reward Sensitivity (Behavioral Activation System), Cognitive, and Metacognitive Control in Gambling Behavior: Evidences From Behavioral, Feedback­Related Negativity, and P300 Effect; J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2015;27(3):219-27.
  • 27. Wardell JD, Quilty LC. Motivational pathways from reward sensitivity and punishment sensitivity to gambling frequency and gambling-related problems. Psychol Addict Behav. 2015; 29(4): 1022-30.
  • 28. Grant J, Chamberlain SR. Impulsive action and impulsive choice across substance and behavioral addictions: Cause or consequence? Addictive Behaviors 2014;39: 1632-39.
  • 29. Leiserson V, Pihl O. Reward-Sensitivity, Inhibition of Reward-Seeking, and Dorsolateral Prefrontal Working Memory Function in Problem Gamblers not in Treatment; J Gambl Stud. 2007;23:435-55.
  • 30. Kertzman S, Lowengrub K. Go-no-go performance in pathological gamblers. Psychiatry Res. 2008; 30; 161 (1): 1- 10.
  • 31. Hong X, Zheng L. Impaired Decision Making is Associated with Poor Inhibition Control in Nonpathological Lottery Gamblers; J Gambl Stud 2015; 31:1617-32.
  • 32. Goudriaan, A., E., Oosterlaan,. Neurocognitive functions in pathological gambling: A comparison with alcohol dependence, Tourette syndrome and normal controls. Addiction, 2006;101, 534-47.
  • 33. Kraplin A, Bühringer G. Dimensions and disorder specifıcity of impulsivity in pathological gambling, Addictive Behaviors. 2014;. 39 1646-51.
  • 34. Stevens T, Brevers D. How Does Response Inhibition Influence Decision Making When Gambling?; Journal of Experimental Psychology 2015; l, 15-36.
  • 35. Odlaug BL, Chamberlain S. A neurocognitive comparison of cognitive flexibiliry and response inhibition in gamblers with varying degrees of clinical Severity. Psychol Med. 2011;41(10): 2111-19.
  • 36. Quilty LC, Watson C. The prevalence and course of pathological gambling in the mood disorders; J Gambl Stud.2011;27(2):191-201.
  • 37. Lang PJ, Bradley MM. Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. Biol Psychiatry. 1998; 15;44(12): 1248-63.
  • 38. Cavedini, P., Riboldi, G., Keller, R., D'Annucci, A., & Bellodi, L. Frontal lobe dysfunction in pathological gambling patients. Biological Psychiatry,2002; 51, 334- 41.
  • 39. Dannon PN, Shoenfeld N. Pathological gambling: an impulse control disorder? Measurement of impulsivity using neurocognitive tests. Isr Med Assoc J .201 O; 12(4):243-8.
  • 40. Ren Y, Fang J, Lv J. Assessing the effects of cocaine dependence and pathological gambling using group-wise sparse representation of natura! stimulus FMRI data. Brain Imaging and Behaviour. 2017; 11 ( 4): 1179-91.
  • 41. Yip SW, Lacadie C, Xu J, Worhunsky PO, Fulbright RK, Constable RT, Potenza MN. Reduced genual corpus callosal white matter integrity in pathological gambling and its relationship to alcohol abuse or dependence. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2013;14(2):129-38.
  • 42. Brevers D, Cleeremans A, Verbruggen F. Impulsive action but not impulsive choice determines problem gambling severity. 2012;7(1 l):e50647. https://doi. org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0050647.
  • 43. Ledgerwood, DM, Orr OS et al. Executive Function in Pathological Gamblers and Healthy Controls; J Gambl Stud. 2012;28:89-103.
There are 43 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Psychology, Subtance Abuse
Journal Section Review Article
Authors

Gürler Güz This is me

Hatice Özyıldız Güz This is me

Publication Date September 7, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017

Cite

APA Güz, G., & Özyıldız Güz, H. (2017). PATOLOJİK KUMAR BAGIMLILIGINDA DAVRANIŞSAL İNHİBİSYON. Current Addiction Research, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.5455/car.105-1514922351
AMA Güz G, Özyıldız Güz H. PATOLOJİK KUMAR BAGIMLILIGINDA DAVRANIŞSAL İNHİBİSYON. Current Addiction Research. September 2017;1(2). doi:10.5455/car.105-1514922351
Chicago Güz, Gürler, and Hatice Özyıldız Güz. “PATOLOJİK KUMAR BAGIMLILIGINDA DAVRANIŞSAL İNHİBİSYON”. Current Addiction Research 1, no. 2 (September 2017). https://doi.org/10.5455/car.105-1514922351.
EndNote Güz G, Özyıldız Güz H (September 1, 2017) PATOLOJİK KUMAR BAGIMLILIGINDA DAVRANIŞSAL İNHİBİSYON. Current Addiction Research 1 2
IEEE G. Güz and H. Özyıldız Güz, “PATOLOJİK KUMAR BAGIMLILIGINDA DAVRANIŞSAL İNHİBİSYON”, Current Addiction Research, vol. 1, no. 2, 2017, doi: 10.5455/car.105-1514922351.
ISNAD Güz, Gürler - Özyıldız Güz, Hatice. “PATOLOJİK KUMAR BAGIMLILIGINDA DAVRANIŞSAL İNHİBİSYON”. Current Addiction Research 1/2 (September 2017). https://doi.org/10.5455/car.105-1514922351.
JAMA Güz G, Özyıldız Güz H. PATOLOJİK KUMAR BAGIMLILIGINDA DAVRANIŞSAL İNHİBİSYON. Current Addiction Research. 2017;1. doi:10.5455/car.105-1514922351.
MLA Güz, Gürler and Hatice Özyıldız Güz. “PATOLOJİK KUMAR BAGIMLILIGINDA DAVRANIŞSAL İNHİBİSYON”. Current Addiction Research, vol. 1, no. 2, 2017, doi:10.5455/car.105-1514922351.
Vancouver Güz G, Özyıldız Güz H. PATOLOJİK KUMAR BAGIMLILIGINDA DAVRANIŞSAL İNHİBİSYON. Current Addiction Research. 2017;1(2).