↓ Skip to main content

A model-based analysis of impulsivity using a slot-machine gambling paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A model-based analysis of impulsivity using a slot-machine gambling paradigm
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00428
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saee Paliwal, Frederike H. Petzschner, Anna Katharina Schmitz, Marc Tittgemeyer, Klaas E. Stephan

Abstract

Impulsivity plays a key role in decision-making under uncertainty. It is a significant contributor to problem and pathological gambling (PG). Standard assessments of impulsivity by questionnaires, however, have various limitations, partly because impulsivity is a broad, multi-faceted concept. What remains unclear is which of these facets contribute to shaping gambling behavior. In the present study, we investigated impulsivity as expressed in a gambling setting by applying computational modeling to data from 47 healthy male volunteers who played a realistic, virtual slot-machine gambling task. Behaviorally, we found that impulsivity, as measured independently by the 11th revision of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11), correlated significantly with an aggregate read-out of the following gambling responses: bet increases (BIs), machines switches (MS), casino switches (CS), and double-ups (DUs). Using model comparison, we compared a set of hierarchical Bayesian belief-updating models, i.e., the Hierarchical Gaussian Filter (HGF) and Rescorla-Wagner reinforcement learning (RL) models, with regard to how well they explained different aspects of the behavioral data. We then examined the construct validity of our winning models with multiple regression, relating subject-specific model parameter estimates to the individual BIS-11 total scores. In the most predictive model (a three-level HGF), the two free parameters encoded uncertainty-dependent mechanisms of belief updates and significantly explained BIS-11 variance across subjects. Furthermore, in this model, decision noise was a function of trial-wise uncertainty about winning probability. Collectively, our results provide a proof of concept that hierarchical Bayesian models can characterize the decision-making mechanisms linked to the impulsive traits of an individual. These novel indices of gambling mechanisms unmasked during actual play may be useful for online prevention measures for at-risk players and future assessments of PG.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Ireland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 117 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 23%
Student > Master 19 15%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 28 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 37%
Neuroscience 12 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 32 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2014.
All research outputs
#6,194,361
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,564
of 7,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,865
of 227,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#119
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.