Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:17:35.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision-Making and Prepotent Response Inhibition Functions in Excessive Internet Users

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

De-Lin Sun ,
Zu-Ji Chen ,
Ning Ma ,
Xiao-Chu Zhang ,
Xian-Ming Fu  and
Da-Ren Zhang
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction: Excessive Internet use (EIU), also described as Internet addiction or pathological Internet use, has already become a serious social problem around the world. Some researchers consider EIU as a kind of behavioral addiction. However, there are few experimental studies on the cognitive functions of excessive Internet users (EIUers) and limited data are available to compare EIU with other addictive behaviors, such as drug abuse and pathological gambling.

Methods: In this study, we examined EIUers' functions of decision-making and prepotent response inhibition. Two groups of participants, EIUers and controls, were compared on these two functions by using a Gambling Task and a Go/no-go Task, respectively.

Results: Compared with controls, EIUers selected significantly less net decks in the Gambling Task (P =.007). Furthermore, the EIUers made progress in selecting strategy, but more slowly than did the control group (EIUers, chunk 3 > chunk 1, P<.001; controls, chunk 2 > chunk P<.001; controls, chunk 2 > chunk 1, P<.001). Interestingly, EIUers' accuracy during the no-go condition was significantly higher than that of controls (P=.018).

Conclusion: These results showed some similarities and dissimilarities between EIU and other addictive behaviors such as drug abuse and pathological gambling. The findings from the Gambling Task indicated that EIUers have deficits in decision-making function, which are characterized by a strategy learning lag rather than an inability to learn from task contingencies. EIUers' better performance in the Go/no-go Task suggested some dissociation between mechanisms of decision-making and those of prepotent response inhibition. However, EIUers could hardly suppress their excessive online behaviors in real life. Their ability of inhibition still needs to be further studied with more specific assessments.

Type
Original Research
Information
CNS Spectrums , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , February 2009 , pp. 75 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Griffiths, MD. Internet addiction: an issue for clinical psychology? Clinical Psychology Forum. 1996;97:302–336.Google Scholar
2. Young, KS. Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychol Behav. 1998;1:237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Davis, RA. A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use (PIU). Computers in Human Behavior. 2001;17:187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Allison, SE, von Wahlde, L, Shockley, T, Gabbard, GO. The development of the self in the era of the internet and role-playing fantasy games. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:381–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Sun, DL, Ma, N, Bao, M, Chen, XC, Zhang, DR. Computer games: a double-edged sword? Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008;11:545–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Block, JJ. Issues for DSM-V: internet addiction. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165:306–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Shaw, M, Black, DW. Internet addiction: definition, assessment, epidemiology and clinical management. CNS Drugs. 2008;22:353–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Liu, T, Potenza, MN. Problematic Internet use: clinical implications. CNS Spectr. 2007;12:453–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Pallanti, S, Bernardi, S, Quercioli, L. The Shorter PROMIS Questionnaire and the Internet Addiction Scale in the assessment of multiple addictions in a high-school population: prevalence and related disability. CNS Spectr. 2006;11:966–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Bechara, A. Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1458–1463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Bechara, A, Damasio, AR, Damasio, H, Anderson, SW. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition. 1994;50:7–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Bechara, A, Dolan, S, Hindes, A. Decision-making and addiction (part II): myopia for the future or hypersensitivity to reward? Neuropsychologia. 2002;40:1690–1705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Bechara, A, Damasio, H. Decision-making and addiction (part I): impaired activation of somatic states in substance dependent individuals when pondering decisions with negative future consequences. Neuropsychologia. 2002;40:1675–1689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Verdejo-Garcia, A, Rivas-Perez, C, Vilar-Lopez, R, Perez-Garcia, M. Strategic self-regulation, decision-making and emotion processing in poly-substance abusers in their first year of abstinence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;86:139–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Cavedini, P, Riboldi, G, Keller, R, D'Annucci, A, Bellodi, L. Frontal lobe dysfunction in pathological gambling patients. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51:334–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Goudriaan, AE, Oosterlaan, J, de Beurs, E, van den Brink, W. Decision making in pathological gambling: a comparison between pathological gamblers, alcohol dependents, persons with Tourette syndrome, and normal controls. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005;23:137–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Friedman, NP, Miyake, A. The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: a latent-variable analysis. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004;133:101–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Rubia, K, Russell, T, Overmeyer, S, et al. Mapping motor inhibition: conjunctive brain activations across different versions of go/no-go and stop tasks. Neuroimage. 2001;13:250–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Nigg, JT. On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychol Bull. 2000;126:220–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Kaufman, JN, Ross, TJ, Stein, EA, Garavan, H. Cingulate hypoactivity in cocaine users during a GO-NOGO task as revealed by event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosci. 2003;23:7839–7843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Hester, R, Garavan, H. Executive dysfunction in cocaine addiction: evidence for discordant frontal, cingulate, and cerebellar activity. J Neurosci. 2004;24:11017–11022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Fuentes, D, Tavares, H, Artes, R, Gorenstein, C. Self-reported and neuropsychological measures of impulsivity in pathological gambling. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2006;12:907–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Goudriaan, AE, Oosterlaan, J, de Beurs, E, van den Brink, W. Neurocognitive functions in pathological gambling: a comparison with alcohol dependence, Tourette syndrome and normal controls. Addiction. 2006;101:534–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Verdejo-Garcia, A, Benbrook, A, Funderburk, F, et al. The differential relationship between cocaine use and marijuana use on decision-making performance over repeat testing with the Iowa Gambling Task. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;90:2–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Grant, JE, Brewer, JA, Potenza, MN. The neurobiology of substance and behavioral addictions. CNS Spectr. 2006;11:924–930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Holden, C. ‘Behavioral’ addictions: do they exist? Science. 2001;294:980–982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Bechara, A, Damasio, H, Damasio, AR, Lee, GP. Different contributions of the human amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making. J Neurosci. J Neurosci. 1999;19:5473–5481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Sakagami, M, Pan, X, Uttl, B. Behavioral inhibition and prefrontal cortex in decision-making. Neural Netw. 2006;19:1255–1265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Bechara, A. The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain Cogn. 2004;55:30–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Garavan, H, Pankiewicz, J, Bloom, A, et al. Cue-induced cocaine craving: neuroanatomical specificity for drug users and drug stimuli. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157:1789–1798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Wexler, BE, Gottschalk, CH, Fulbright, RK, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of cocaine craving. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:86–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Potenza, MN, Steinberg, MA, Skudlarski, P, et al. Gambling urges in pathological gambling: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60:828–836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Zhang, XC, Chen, XC, Yu, YQ, et al. Masked smoking-related images modulate brain activity in smokers. Hum Brain Mapp. 2008 (Published Online, DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20552).Google Scholar
34. Childress, AR, Ehrman, RN, Wang, Z, et al. Prelude to passion: limbic activation by “unseen” drug and sexual cues. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e1506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Volkow, ND, Fowler, JS, Wang, GJ. The addicted human brain: insights from imaging studies. J Clin Invest. 2003;111:1444–1451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Thalemann, R, Wolfling, K, Grusser, SM. Specific cue reactivity on computer gamerelated cues in excessive gamers. Behav Neurosci. 2007;121:614–618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. iResearch Consulting Group. Yearly report 2006: The 6th Chinese Online Game Research Report. Available at: http://down.iresearch.cn/Reports/Free/969.html. Accessed July 28, 2008.Google Scholar
38. Green, CS, Bavelier, D. Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature. 2003;423:534–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Green, CS, Bavelier, D. Enumeration versus multiple object tracking: the case of action video game players. Cognition. 2006;101:217–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Castel, AD, Pratt, J, Drummond, E. The effects of action video game experience on the time course of inhibition of return and the efficiency of visual search. Acta Psychol(Amst). 2005;119:217–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed