Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • De-Lin Sun, Zu-Ji Chen, Ning Ma, Xiao-Chu Zhang, Xian-Ming Fu and Da-Ren Zhang...

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Please direct all correspondence to: Prof. Da-Ren Zhang, Division of Bio-X Interdisciplinary Sciences at Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at Microscale and the Cognitive Neuropsychological Laboratory at School of Life Sciences, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230027, China; Tel: 86-360-1447, Fax: 86-360-1443; E-mail: drzhang@ustc.edu.cn.

References

Hide All
1. Griffiths, MD. Internet addiction: an issue for clinical psychology? Clinical Psychology Forum. 1996;97:302336.
2. Young, KS. Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychol Behav. 1998;1:237244.
3. Davis, RA. A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use (PIU). Computers in Human Behavior. 2001;17:187195.
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;163:381385.
5. Sun, DL, Ma, N, Bao, M, Chen, XC, Zhang, DR. Computer games: a double-edged sword? Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008;11:545548.
6. Block, JJ. Issues for DSM-V: internet addiction. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165:306307.
7. Shaw, M, Black, DW. Internet addiction: definition, assessment, epidemiology and clinical management. CNS Drugs. 2008;22:353365.
8. Liu, T, Potenza, MN. Problematic Internet use: clinical implications. CNS Spectr. 2007;12:453466.
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;11:966974.
10. Bechara, A. Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:14581463.
11. Bechara, A, Damasio, AR, Damasio, H, Anderson, SW. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition. 1994;50:715.
12. Bechara, A, Dolan, S, Hindes, A. Decision-making and addiction (part II): myopia for the future or hypersensitivity to reward? Neuropsychologia. 2002;40:16901705.
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;40:16751689.
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;86:139146.
15. Cavedini, P, Riboldi, G, Keller, R, D'Annucci, A, Bellodi, L. Frontal lobe dysfunction in pathological gambling patients. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51:334341.
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;23:137151.
17. Friedman, NP, Miyake, A. The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: a latent-variable analysis. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004;133:101135.
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;13:250261.
19. Nigg, JT. On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychol Bull. 2000;126:220246.
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;23:78397843.
21. Hester, R, Garavan, H. Executive dysfunction in cocaine addiction: evidence for discordant frontal, cingulate, and cerebellar activity. J Neurosci. 2004;24:1101711022.
22. Fuentes, D, Tavares, H, Artes, R, Gorenstein, C. Self-reported and neuropsychological measures of impulsivity in pathological gambling. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2006;12:907912.
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;101:534547.
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;90:211.
25. Grant, JE, Brewer, JA, Potenza, MN. The neurobiology of substance and behavioral addictions. CNS Spectr. 2006;11:924930.
26. Holden, C. ‘Behavioral’ addictions: do they exist? Science. 2001;294:980982.
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;19:54735481.
28. Sakagami, M, Pan, X, Uttl, B. Behavioral inhibition and prefrontal cortex in decision-making. Neural Netw. 2006;19:12551265.
29. Bechara, A. The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain Cogn. 2004;55:3040.
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;157:17891798.
31. Wexler, BE, Gottschalk, CH, Fulbright, RK, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of cocaine craving. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:8695.
32. Potenza, MN, Steinberg, MA, Skudlarski, P, et al. Gambling urges in pathological gambling: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60:828836.
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).
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.
35. Volkow, ND, Fowler, JS, Wang, GJ. The addicted human brain: insights from imaging studies. J Clin Invest. 2003;111:14441451.
36. Thalemann, R, Wolfling, K, Grusser, SM. Specific cue reactivity on computer gamerelated cues in excessive gamers. Behav Neurosci. 2007;121:614618.
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.
38. Green, CS, Bavelier, D. Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature. 2003;423:534537.
39. Green, CS, Bavelier, D. Enumeration versus multiple object tracking: the case of action video game players. Cognition. 2006;101:217245.
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;119:217230.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed