4.7 Review

Cross-species approaches to pathological gambling: A review targeting sex differences, adolescent vulnerability and ecological validity of research tools

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 37, 期 10, 页码 2454-2471

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.005

关键词

Decision-making; Pathological gambling; Sex differences; Adolescence; Social interaction; Prefrontal cortex; Serotonin; Dopamine; Animal models; Ecological validity; Translational research

资金

  1. EMMA
  2. Dipartimento Politiche Antidroga of Italian Premier Ministry
  3. Italian Ministry of Health
  4. EU
  5. Medical Research Council [G0801418B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decision-making plays a pivotal role in daily life as impairments in processes underlying decision-making often lead to an inability to make profitable long-term decisions. As a case in point, pathological gamblers continue gambling despite the fact that this disrupts their personal, professional or financial life. The prevalence of pathological gambling will likely increase in the coming years due to expanding possibilities of on-line gambling through the Internet and increasing liberal attitudes towards gambling. It therefore represents a growing concern for society. Both human and animal studies rapidly advance our knowledge on brain-behaviour processes relevant for understanding normal and pathological gambling behaviour. Here, we review in humans and animals three features of pathological gambling which hitherto have received relatively little attention: (1) sex differences in (the development of) pathological gambling, (2) adolescence as a (putative) sensitive Period for (developing) pathological gambling and (3) avenues for improving ecological validity of research tools. Based on these issues we also discuss how research in humans and animals may be brought in line to maximize translational research opportunities. (C) 2013 Elsevier 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

4.7
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