Neurophysiological correlates of near-wins in gambling: A systematic literature review

• Autor(a) principal: Dores, Artemisa Rocha
• Data de Publicação: 2024
• Outros Autores: Peixoto, Miguel, Fernandes, Carina, Geraldo, Andreia, Griffiths, Mark D., Barbosa, Fernando
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.22/25945
• topic: Gambling; Near miss; Near Win; Event-related potentials (ERP); P300; Feedback-related negativity (FRN)

Identification of specific patterns of brain activity related to problem gambling may provide a deeper understanding of its underlying mechanisms, highlighting the importance of neurophysiological studies to better understand development and persistence of gambling behavior. The patterns of cognitive functioning have been investigated through electroencephalography (EEG) studies based on the near-win/near-miss (NW) effect. The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the neurophysiological basis of NWs and their modulation by gambling problems through a systematic review of event-related potentials (ERP) studies elicited by feedback events. The review followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA). A total of 15 studies were included, 12 comprising non-problem gamblers (NPGs) and three comparing problem gamblers (PGs) with matched controls. For the P300 component, the win outcome elicited a larger amplitude than the other outcomes (NW and loss), followed by the NW outcome, which elicited a larger amplitude than loss in some studies. For feedback-related negativity (FRN), the loss outcome evoked a more negative amplitude in several studies, despite eliciting a similar amplitude to NW outcomes in others. For PGs, the NW outcome evoked a higher amplitude of P300 than loss, while NPGs showed a similar amplitude to both outcomes. The present review gathered information from different sources and provides a consistent view of the different studies. However, studies lack systematic and robust methodologies, leading to inconsistent results and making it difficult to reach any definitive conclusions.