4.6 Article

Decision Making in Restless Legs Syndrome

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 25, 期 15, 页码 2634-2640

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.23326

关键词

restless legs syndrome; dopamine; impulsivity; decision making; Iowa Gambling Task; Game of Dice Task

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dopamine system is implicated in reward-based decision making with explicit information (decision making under risk) and implicit probabilities (decision making under ambiguity). Although the pathophysiology of restless legs syndrome (RLS) is not yet fully understood, the genetic factors, iron status, and dopaminergic system are thought to play a role. RLS provides an opportunity to test the dopaminergic hypothesis in a drug-free population and to characterize reward processing using decision-making paradigms. We investigated impulsivity, impulse control disorders, and decision making in 50 untreated patients with primary RLS compared with 60 sex-and age-matched normal controls using one night of polysomnography recording, a structured psychiatric interview, and questionnaires (RLS Severity Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, and Urgency Premeditation Perseverance Impulsive Behavior Scale). Subjects performed the Iowa Gambling Task to assess decision making under ambiguity and the Game of Dice Task to assess decision making under risk. Patients with RLS showed selective changes in decision making on the Iowa Gambling Task and normal decision making on the Game of Dice Task compared with controls. Patients with RLS had greater depressive symptoms than controls, but no difference was found in impulsivity, impulse control disorders, or addictive behaviors. Clinical and polysomnographic variables were unrelated to decision-making performance. Results indicate reduced decision-making performance under ambiguity in drug-free patients with RLS. From a clinical perspective, when using dopaminergic medication to treat RLS, patients with abnormal baseline behaviors should be closely monitored. (C) 2010 Movement Disorder Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据