Executive function in pathological gamblers and healthy controls.

Executive function (EF) deficits may underlie some of the impulse control problems seen in pathological gambling. Pathological gamblers (PGs, n = 45) and controls (n = 45) were compared on several measures of EF (including measures of response inhibition, working memory, cognitive flexibility and perseveration, planning and decision-making), as well as memory and intelligence tests to examine whether PGs evidence EF dysfunction. Compared with controls, PGs exhibited specific deficits on measures of planning and decision-making. PGs also exhibited relative deficits on a measure of perseveration, but this deficit was no longer significant after controlling for group differences in intelligence. These results suggest that PGs may experience deficits on specific components of EF.

Affective and cognitive correlates of gambling behavior in university students.

The purpose of the following study was to explore certain affective and cognitive components and their relationships to gambling behavior in an undergraduate population. Specifically, the aim was to predict gambling severity using depression scores on the BDI-II, the dependency and self-criticism subscales on the DEQ, emotional awareness scores on the LEAS, cognitive flexibility scores from the STROOP, and a creativity subtests from the TTCT. Participants were 200 undergraduate students and 3.5-7.5% of individuals reported some level of problematic gambling behavior. Multiple regression analysis indicated that self-criticism and creative originality were significant predictors of gambling behavior, explaining 7.6% of the variance. Further analyses reveal a non-linear trend in the creative originality of those who gamble; only the at-risk gamblers were high in creativity whereas abstainers and problematic gamblers display similarly lower levels of creativity. Results are discussed in regards to Blaszczynski and Nower's Addiction 97:487-499 (2002) subtypes of gambling vulnerability.

Degree versus direction: a comparison of four handedness classification schemes through the investigation of lateralised semantic priming.

Four classification systems were examined using lateralised semantic priming in order to investigate whether degree or direction of handedness better captures the pattern of lateralised semantic priming. A total of 85 participants completed a lateralised semantic priming task and three handedness questionnaires. The classification systems tested were: (1) the traditional right- vs left-handed (RHs vs LHs); (2) a four-factor model of strong and weak right- and left-handers (SRHs, WRHs, SLHs, WLHs); (3) strong- vs mixed-handed (SHs vs MHs); and (4) a three-factor model of consistent left- (CLHs), inconsistent left- (ILHs), and consistent right-handers (CRHs). Mixed-factorial ANOVAs demonstrated significant visual field (VF) by handedness interactions for all but the third model. Results show that LHs, SLHs, CLHs, and ILHs responded faster to LVF targets, whereas RHs, SRHs, and CRHs responded faster to RVF targets; no significant VF by handedness interaction was found between SHs and MHs. The three-factor model better captures handedness group divergence on lateralised semantic priming by incorporating the direction of handedness as well as the degree. These findings help explain some of the variance in language lateralisation, demonstrating that direction of handedness is as important as degree. The need for greater consideration of handedness subgroups in laterality research is highlighted.