Introduction
Usually, the brain has been viewed as the motionless organ, but presently, researches authenticate the claim that its circuitry is ever changing because of the functionality experience. Studies in the modern society prove that brain plasticity, as well as behavior, is often influenced by several factors, which are both pre and postnatal in nature. Other factors that influence the plasticity of the brain are substances, hormones, maturity, age, diet, infections, and nervous tension (Kolb 12). In order to comprehend how regular and irregular behaviors come about, it is important to analyze the influence of these factors on the brain structure (Kolb, Forgie, Gibb, Gorny and Rowntree 150). This paper looks at the effects of gambling on the functionality of the brain and it does this through reviewing various experiments and their findings.
Effects of Gambling on Brain
The idea that gambling tends to have similar effects as those of drugs on the brain is valid. A research conducted in the United States at the Massachusetts General Hospital in 2001 confirmed this assertion by noting that an individual anticipating for a win in the roulette table tends to react in the same way as an individual taking euphoria-inducing substances. The study proved that the part of brain is affected when individuals gamble is the same as that affected when people use drugs, such as cocaine. The brain employs a similar circuitry when processing the gambling rewards and responding to drugs.
The researchers concluded the gaming experiment by observing that a network of correlated brain structures tends to coordinate the processing of goal-related stimuli. It was established further that blood flow from other parts of the body to the brain is changes whenever an individual engages in gambling, which is similar to the intake of cocaine. The changes taking place in the brain are influenced by the amount of money involved whereby it is faster when the amount involved is high. The right hemisphere part of the brain was likely to be affected when an individual anticipated a win whereas the left was affected when loosing was inevitable in the gaming process.
A study conducted in 2002 by science magazine in the US concluded that people are likely to make riskier choices after the gambling process, depending on whether they won or lost. Winning means a lot since it facilitates the making of enhanced decisions meaning that medial-frontal computations take place in the process of gambling. In 2003, a study conducted at Yale University in the US came up with new findings on the effects of gambling on gender since it was found that unique brain activity in men engaging in gambling is prevalent, especially when they view videotapes on betting.
Studies conducted on various organisms reveal that behavior change leads to modifications in the structure of circuitry, which is charged with production of behavior. In case neutral networks change because of experiences, the changes in the functions of the networks would be inevitable. Researchers with an interest of ascertaining the factors that interfere with brain paths and behaviors have to find out the challenges that measure the changes. Based on this, Camillo Golgi came up with a procedure in the 17th century that would help in discoloring unsystematic compartment of the neuron, which pave way for the apparition of the dendritic foliages of brain cells and other cell bodies.
The dendrites play a critical role, as they scaffold synapses while tree branches on their part offer a place for leaves to develop, as well as exposure to the light. Through the technique, it is established that a researcher could simply estimate the leaves on the tree without necessarily counting them physically. In this regard, measurement of the tree’s length, as well as the density of its branches, is possible through representation. Again, multiplication of branch length with the density of the leaf gives an approximate of leafage (Kolb, Gibb, and Gorny 430).
Ten years ago, at around 2002, researchers in the United States were not aware if an individual could be addicted to gambling the same people are hooked on drugs (Ōtani 89). Those suffering from the disorder were never told the truth that they were suffering from gambling addiction since the issue raised controversy. Recently, studies confirm that gambling has the possibility of forming addiction. The psychiatric community regarded pathological gambling as a neurotic behavior but not a habit since people are often inspired by the need to mitigate anxiety rather than a desire for strong pressure (Kolb, Gibb, and Gorny 128).
In the early 1980s, the association for psychologists in the United States categorized pathological gambling as simply an impulse-control problem, which meant that it was a nebulous brand for a group of individuals suffering from related diseases, such as kleptomania, pyromania, and trichotillomania. Later on, the association moved gambling to the addiction section after an extensive research, which proves that it influences the brain to do some of the things that it could not have done under normal circumstances. Gambling is easily accessed in the modern society and the society accepts it as one way of funding projects. Recent studies suggest that at least four Americans out of five have gambled. Several states, apart from Utah and Hawaii, have a legalized gambling system and some forms of gambling are available online. Additionally, studies show that at least two million people are addicts of gambling and an additional twenty million are of the view that gambling is an obstacle to their work schedule.
The APA conducted a study in 2000 that was based on the review of various psychological, neuroscience, and genetic findings confirming that gambling causes addiction just as drugs. In a study conducted by Chase and Clark in 2013 in the US, it was established that many people assume gambling is a common recreational activity, even though it becomes dysfunctional in a number of individuals leading to addiction, which have an effect on the performance of the brain (Chase and Clark 6183).
The researchers observed that DSM pathological gambling is the most severe of all of the types. In the process of gambling, individuals come across several cognitive distortions that enhance the behavior of overestimation of the opportunity to win a prize. Near-miss outcomes are to blame for this behavior since individuals are often optimistic of attaining something after the process. The previous study conducted in 2009, the two researchers had concluded that near miss employed overlapping circuitry as far as monetary gains is concerned. The main aim of the existing study was only to expand the findings of the preceding study by interrogating ordinary gamblers while relating their answers to a certain index of gambling rigorousness. In this regard, a sample of twenty gamblers was used who suggested that their aim of engaging in gambling was different, with some observing that they engaged in gambling simply for recreational purposes while others claimed that they played due to gain money.
The researchers undertook a simple slot machine test that delivered monetary wins and near miss or full miss non-win results. The near miss group was linked to the important response in the ventral striatum. When calculated using the South Oak Gambling Screen, the findings showed a superior answer in the dopaminergic midbrain to close to miss consequences. In the study, it was concluded that near miss events in the process of gambling enhance the brain circuitry that is related to reward.
In a different study, Sescousse, Barbalat, Domenech, and Dreher concluded that pathological gambling is simply an addictive disorder that is based on persistent compulsive desire to participate in gambling activities. Additionally, the research findings suggested that gambling is a maladaptive behavior that is a result of decreased sensitivity as far as rewards are concerned. In their attempt to test the hypothesis that gambling is a reflection of an imbalance in the sensitivity to monetary versus non-monetary incentives, they examined the way in which the brain rewards circuit pathological gamblers (Sescousse, Barbalat, Domenech, and Dreher 2530).
They employed the services of a magnetic resonance imaging that made a comparison between eighteen gamblers and twenty normal individuals who acted as the control group. The two subsets were instructed to engage in an incentive task that manipulated the process in terms of monetary and visual erotic rewards. The ventral striatum of pathological gamblers had a different type of response as regards monetary versus erotic cues, which seemed to be driven by a dulled reaction.
In a study conducted in China in 2006, Rongjun and Xiaolin noted that the feedback-related negativity in the capability of the brain as regards an individual’s performance is sensitive as far as negative results are concerned. The study found out that feedback-related negativity is believed to reflect the educational process. Learning always takes place when an individual sees what other people are doing and the consequent results (Rongjun and Xiaolin 1750).
The researchers undertook a study that took note of the participant’s feedback regarding their performance or those of other people in an attempt to establish their responsiveness in a gambling environment. Through the experiment, it was identified that similar neural mechanisms are involved in assessing the results of an individual’s actions. It was concluded that neural processes in undertaking an educational lesson through observation is similar to another learning process administered through doing. The experiment first collected the response of participants through specialized tools.
Conclusion
Several conclusions could be drawn from the studies, which prove that various life experiences have an influence on the activity of the brain. Pre and postnatal experiences, including the effects, have lasting consequences on the functionality of the brain, as well as the behavior of the individual. The most effective treatment technique or strategy for any addiction should be in a position to reorganize the brain circuit. Even though the studies succeed in explaining the effects of experiences on neuroplasticity and behavior, theoretical issues are yet to be addressed. One of the issues is related to the limits and the permanence of plastic changes because people have the capacity of learning and coming across new information on daily basis. In this case, the limits in which the cells change cannot be established.
Works Cited
Chase, Henry and Luke Clark. “Gambling Severity Predicts Midbrain Response to Near-Miss Outcomes.” The Journal of Neuroscience, 5.5 (2013): 6180-6187. Print.
Greenough, Wilson and Fredrick Chang. “Plasticity of synapse structure and pattern in the cerebral cortex.” Cerebral cortex 7.2 (1989): 391-440. Print.
Kolb, Bryan, Martin Forgie, Robinson Gibb, Gill Gorny, and Straus Rowntree. “Age, experience, and the changing brain.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 22.1 (1999): 143-159. Print.
Kolb, Bryan, Robinson Gibb and Gill Gorny. “Cortical plasticity and the development of behavior after early frontal cortical injury.” Developmental Neuropsycholog, 18.1 (2000): 423-444. Print.
Kolb, Bryan, Robinson Gibb and Gill Gorny. “Experience-dependent changes in dendritic arbor and spine density in neocortex vary with age and sex.” Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 10.1 (2003): 123-156. Print.
Kolb, Bryan. Brain plasticity and behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995. Print.
Ōtani, Satoru. Prefrontal Cortex: From Synaptic Plasticity to Cognition. Boston: Kluwer Acad. Publ, 2004. Print.
Robinson, Terrr and Kerry Berridge. “Addiction.” Annual Review of Psychology 1.3 (2000): 45-67. Print.
Rongjun, Yu and Zhou Xiaolin. “Brain responses to outcomes of one’s own and other’s performance in a gambling task.” Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology 17.16 (2006): 1747-1751. Print.
Sescousse, Guillaume, Guillaume Barbalat, Phillipe Domenech, and Jean-Cloud Dreher. “Imbalance in the sensitivity to different types of rewards in pathological gambling.” Journal of Neurology, 136.8 (2013): 2527-2538. Print.
Shaw, Christopher and Jill McEachern. Toward a theory of neuroplasticity. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2001. Print.