4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Decision-malting deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 376-389

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00136-6

关键词

orbital prefrontal cortex; decision-making; addiction; alcohol; cocaine; metamphetamine; gambling task

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA011779] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [DA11779-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A decision-making instrument known as the 'gambling task' was used, which has been shown to be sensitive to the decision-making impairment of patients with bilateral lesions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VM). Three groups of subjects were tested, substance dependent individuals (SD) (n = 41), normal controls (n = 40), and VM patients (n = 5). All SD met the DSM-IV criteria for dependence, with either alcohol or stimulants (metamphetamine or cocaine) as the primary substance of choice. The results revealed a significant impairment in the performance of SD relative to normal controls. A significantly high proportion of SD (61 vs. only 32.5% of normal controls) performed within the range of the VM patients, while the rest performed within the range of normal controls. General demographic Factors such as age, sex, and level of education could not explain these differences in performance. As well, differences in performance were not explained by intelligence (IQ), memory, or performance on standard executive function/frontal lobe tests. Performance on the gambling task was best predicted by a combination of factors; including duration of abstinence, years of abuse, relapses and limes in treatment, and the ability to hold gainful employment. The results support the hypothesis that impairment in decision-making linked to a dysfunctional VM cortex is associated with at least a sub-group of SD. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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