Advertisement

Neurological Soft Signs in Individuals with Pathological Gambling

  • Igor Elman ,

    ielman@cha.harvard.edu

    Affiliations: Providence VA Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, Cambridge Health Alliance, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Tamara V. Gurvits,

    Affiliation: Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Evelyne Tschibelu,

    Affiliation: Cambridge Health Alliance, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Justin D. Spring,

    Affiliation: Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Natasha B. Lasko,

    Affiliation: Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Roger K. Pitman

    Affiliation: Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts, United States of America

Neurological Soft Signs in Individuals with Pathological Gambling

  • Igor Elman, 
  • Tamara V. Gurvits, 
  • Evelyne Tschibelu, 
  • Justin D. Spring, 
  • Natasha B. Lasko, 
  • Roger K. Pitman
PLOS
x
  • Published: April 4, 2013
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060885
  • Published in PLOS ONE

Abstract

Increased neurological soft signs (NSSs) have been found in a number of neuropsychiatric syndromes, including chemical addiction. The present study examined NSSs related to perceptual-motor and visuospatial processing in a behavioral addiction viz., pathological gambling (PG). As compared to mentally healthy individuals, pathological gamblers displayed significantly poorer ability to copy two- and three-dimensional figures, to recognize objects against a background noise, and to orient in space on a road-map test. Results indicated that PG is associated with subtle cerebral cortical abnormalities. Further prospective clinical research is needed to address the NSSs' origin and chronology (e.g., predate or follow the development of PG) as well as their response to therapeutic interventions and/or their ability to predict such a response.

Introduction

Parallel to the ongoing expansion of legalized gambling activities is an increase in the prevalence of pathological gambling (PG) [1], [2]. Pathological gambling afflicts up to 5% of the general adult population and it costs American society an estimated $54 billion annually due to crime, decreased productivity, and bankruptcies [3][7]. These estimates are likely conservative, given that PG is not a conspicuous addiction, and it is devoid of typical symptoms of intoxication, needle marks, or overdose. It may only become noticeable in later stages of the illness, with the emergence of highly visible behaviors including attempted suicide in up to 24% of untreated individuals [7][9]. To improve prevention and treatment of PG, it is important to identify its behavioral markers and their neural correlates.

A relatively consistent finding in functional brain imaging studies of PG is failure of prefrontal cortical areas to activate when challenged by cognitive tasks that normally evoke cerebral blood flow and metabolic responses in these regions [10][17]. Likewise, neuropsychological impairments are commonly documented in PG patients [18][20], but their role in the course of the disorder remains unclear [16], as they do not reliably reflect the severity of gambling problems [21], [22]. The nonspecificity of PG neuropsychological findings may be partially attributable to the multidimensionality of the tests employed [23]. Additionally, some results may reflect poor motivation and attention [24], [25] rather than PG-related primary neuropathology, which has not yet been well defined [23].

Neurological assessment paradigms may be of value in revealing cortical abnormalities in PG. In this regard, neurological soft signs (NSSs) are reliable [26][28], easily administered and temporally stable [29], [30] markers of neurological compromise, which impose fewer cognitive demands than neuropsychological tests and are therefore less influenced by performance confounds [31]. In contrast to hard neurological signs localizable to a specific brain site, their soft counterparts are attributed to wider brain regions and functionally connected neuroanatomical systems, involved in integrative neurological functions such as sensory perception, coordination and motor sequencing [32], [33]. Neurological soft signs have been observed in a growing number of neuropsychiatric syndromes including mood disorders [34][36], obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) [37][39], post-traumatic stress disorder [26], [27], impulse control disorder [40], schizophrenia [32], [34], [41], and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [42]. Furthermore, an inverse relationship between NSSs scores and total brain volume has been noted in psychopathological populations [27], [43] adding support to the generalized rather than localized NSSs' nature.

In a previous paper, we reported that cocaine dependence is characterized by the NSS of constructional apraxia [31]. As with PG, cocaine dependence is classified in the DSM-V draft among Substance Use and Addictive Disorders [44]. However, in addition to its representing a behavioral addiction, a substance addiction to cocaine exerts profound chemical effects on the brain that may even result in such injuries as subarachnoid/parenchymal hemorrhages [45][56] and infarcts [47], [50].

Because it is not confounded by exogenous neurotoxicity, PG offers a unique opportunity to test whether a purely behavioral addiction is accompanied by neurological compromise. To our knowledge, NSSs have not yet been investigated in pathological gamblers. The presence in PG of obsessive/compulsive and impulsive features each of which has been previously linked with NSSs [40], [57], [58] suggests that NSSs may also be seen in PG. Accordingly, in this project we assessed three NSSs in PG and healthy subjects. These were: a) copying two- and three-dimensional figures (as previously tested in cocaine subjects [31]); b) filtration of visual signal from noise; and c) left-right orientation in the form of reading and understanding a simple road map. These visuospatial and sensory integration tasks were selected for the present project from our comprehensive NSSs assessment battery based upon their discriminative ability in drug-dependent and other psychiatric patients [27], [31], [59] as well as their ease of administration as paper-and-pencil tasks. We hypothesized that patients with PG would be more impaired than healthy subjects on all three tasks.

Methods

Subjects

Twenty-one subjects who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM IV-TR) criteria for PG, and 10 non-gamblers who did not meet DSM IV-TR criteria for any disorder, were recruited by newspaper advertisement for participation in a previous study on the neurobiology of PG. The biochemical [60] and psychosocial [61] stress responsivity findings from that study have been reported elsewhere. After a full explanation of the procedures, all subjects gave written informed consent to the McLean Hospital Institutional Review Board-approved protocol. Those with any cognitive impairment that precluded informed consent based on clinical interview and the assessments instruments (see below) were excluded from study participation. Subjects were diagnosed by a research psychiatrist using a best estimate format utilizing all available sources of information including clinical history, interview, and the following psychodiagnostic instruments: the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID [62]); the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS [63]); the DSM PG checklist (DSMIV-TR [64], [65]); and the Addiction Severity Index [66]. All subjects were right handed as determined by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory [67], and scored at least 28 on the Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE [68]). Furthermore, they were in good physical health as ascertained by the Cornell Medical Index Health Questionnaire [69].

The exclusion criteria included left handedness, lifetime history of dementia, schizophrenia, or other psychotic disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, current drug or alcohol dependence, past but not current PG, or major depression with onset prior to PG. We also excluded potentially confounding neurological conditions, such as seizure disorder, head trauma accompanied by loss of consciousness greater than 10 minutes, brain surgery, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson's disease, as well as potentially confounding medical conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, diabetes, obesity (body mass index ≥30), congestive heart failure, hypertension, renal diseases, cirrhosis, HIV-positive status and AIDS. Recent drug and alcohol consumption was ruled out by negative results on urine toxicology screen and breathalyzer.

Procedures

The three tasks were administered over one session in the following order: Copy Figure Test (CFT), Detection and Recognition of an Object Test (DROT) and Road Map Test (RMT). None of the tasks was timed. Responses on the DROT and the RMT were recorded by a research assistant seated next to the subject. Both the subject and the examiner were ‘blind’ to the study's hypothesis.

The CFT [70], [71] is perceptual-motor in nature and comprises two-dimensional (diamond and cross) and three-dimensional (Necker cube, smoking pipe, hidden line elimination cube, pyramid and dissected pyramid) figures (Figure 1A). Subjects were instructed to copy each figure exactly as it appeared to them with a pen. They were allowed to look at each figure as often as needed. They were further instructed neither to erase any lines nor to draw any lines that did not appear in the figure they copied.

thumbnail
Figure 1. The two-dimensional (diamond and cross) and three-dimensional (Necker cube, smoking pipe, hidden line elimination cube, pyramid and dissected pyramid) figures copied by the subjects (Panel A). Examples of PG subjects' performance on the Copy Figure Test (Panel B).

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060885.g001

The DROT [72], [73] consisted of two sets of the same six images (Figure 2). Each image depicted a single basic household object, namely key, shovel, pitcher, eyeglasses, hammer, and kettle. However, the object recognition was complicated by background “noise,” consisting of a field of black squares of two different densities, namely 35 and 15 squares per line. Subjects viewed all six objects with the denser (more difficult) background first, followed by all six objects with the less dense (less difficult) background. They were instructed to identify all objects and were allowed to bring the page as close to the eyes as desired.

thumbnail
Figure 2. Detection and Recognition of an Object Test (DROT).

“High noise” and “low noise” sets were presented separately, with the latter following the former. Subjects were instructed to identify the object embedded in the noise.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060885.g002

The RMT [74] is designed to evaluate directional sense in visuospatial processing (Figure 3). Subjects were presented with a map of an imaginary town, with a delineated route containing 32 intersections. They were instructed to imagine driving this route and to indicate at each intersection whether the route turned left or right. The research assistant followed the route with a pencil and marked R or L in accordance with the verbal response at each intersection. The map remained in a fixed position in front of the subject, and they were not allowed to move it. Each subject's familiarity with the task was confirmed via a brief practice trial.

thumbnail
Figure 3. The Money Road Map Test (RMT).

The continuous dotted line represents the path followed by the researcher's pen. Subjects were asked at each successive turn to indicate whether it was right or left. The smaller dotted line in the lower right serves as a practice trial.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060885.g003

The CFT was scored by a dually trained psychiatrist and neurologist, who not only was blind to diagnosis but had never seen the subjects, utilizing a four-point scoring convention for each figure. Zero (0) coded perfect or near perfect reproduction; 1 coded mild distortion or rotation; 2 coded moderate distortion or rotation, or severe micropsy or a loss of three-dimensionality; and 3 coded gross distortion of the basic gestalt or a virtually unrecognizable image. On the DROT, number of failed identifications was scored. On the RMT, number of wrong turns was scored.

Demographic variables were analyzed by Student's t-tests or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate. Because most of the CFT, DROT, and RMT data were ordinal and not normally distributed, they were summarized as both median and mean ± standard deviation (SD). The univariate nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare groups. Significance was defined as p<0.05, one-tailed, with more abnormalities predicted in the PG group.

Results

Table 1 presents demographic and psychometric data for the two groups. These data demonstrate that pathological gamblers were not significantly different from healthy controls with respect to age, race, gender, years of education, performance on the MMSE, and consumption of alcohol. As planned, there were conspicuous differences in SOGS score and the number of DSM-IV TR PG criteria met.

thumbnail
Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics (Means ± SDs or Ratios) of Study Participants.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060885.t001

Figure 1B presents examples of mistakes made by PG subjects on the CFT. Table 2 presents the group medians and means ± SDs for each CFT figure separately and for the average score of all 7 figures, as well as the DROT and RMT score means and medians, and the results of the group comparisons. With the exception of the smoking pipe figure and the pyramid figure (for which there was a trend), all tests revealed significantly poorer performance in the PG group. Performance on the hidden line elimination- and Necker cubes was dramatically poorer in the PG subjects. Notably, the latter test is characterized by ambiguous front-back orientation necessitating visuospatial ability to shift attention between two equally plausible figural spatial representations [75].

thumbnail
Table 2. Group medians and mean (±SDs) for the performance indices on the Copy Figure, Detection and Recognition of an Object and the Road Map tests.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060885.t002

Repeating the analyses after excluding ten smokers (all in the PG group; among them are two subjects with respective cocaine and alcohol dependence, both in full sustained remission), the group effect remained significant for the CFT average score (p = 0.002), for the high (p = 0.03) and low (p = 0.0005) noise DROT errors and for the RMT errors (p = 0.03).

Discussion

In this study we identified several signs in pathological gamblers reflecting their diminished ability to recognize and construct objects and orient them in space. These dysfunctions have not yet been addressed in literature on neuropsychological disturbances in PG. In comparison to healthy subjects, pathological gamblers showed substantially worse performance on copying two- and three-dimensional figures, recognizing objects against background noise, and discriminating left from right turns on a map. Methodological similarities between the present study and our prior study of cocaine dependence [31] included enrollment of subjects with addictive disorders and use of a standard copy figure task. There were differences in the type of addiction and in the number of tasks performed by subjects. Overall these results provide further support for subtle neurobiological impairment in a behavioral addiction that is not confounded by exogenous chemical use. Our data are also consistent with a substantial body of literature documenting neuropsychological impairments in PG patients [18][20], and they extend prior findings by suggesting that the impairments are not restricted to the cognitive domains addressed by neuropsychological testing but also generalize to the sensorimotor domain.

Several brain regions influence the drawing of three-dimensional figures, but as evident from research on cortically damaged patients [76] and from neuroimaging work [75], [77] the most important of the regions is the parietal cortex. Ventral striatum and related mesolimbic dopaminergic circuitry are traditionally considered to be a key component of reward system involved in addiction [78], and it is commonly hypothesized that changes in the mesolimbic pathways underlying motivational processes are responsible for transforming regular drives into heightened incentive salience assigned to addiction-related cues [79]. However, recent research suggests a novel factor in the mechanisms underlying incentive sensitization by implicating parietal cortex in the control exerted over striatal signals of salience via integration of visuospatial, motor and cognitive (e.g., hedonic value and categorical boundaries) inputs [80]. In addition to these theoretical considerations, an abundant clinical literature demonstrates parietal cortex changes in the context of chronic addictive behaviors [81], [82]. Hence NSSs examination may support the need to focus on this important region and on its role in the pathophysiology of PG.

A limitation of the cross-sectional design employed here is its inability to resolve the origin of elevated NSSs in PG. One possibility is that they are preexisting vulnerability markers [83]. A growing body of work points to compromised cortical function reflected in NSSs that precedes the emergence of mood, anxiety [57], psychotic [84][86] and obsessive-compulsive [57], [87] symptoms. Neurological soft signs are also commonly observed in mentally healthy relatives of schizophrenic patients [88][91], further suggesting their preexisting and inheritable trait-like nature. Notably, as suggested by twin studies, PG has a robust genetic component ranging from 50 to 60% [92]. Greater premorbid hyperactivity, impulsivity, and antisociality have been found in PG subjects [93].

A second possible origin of NSSs in PG is that they are acquired, e.g., they are a consequence of excessive gambling. People who gamble lose money, and a consequence of losing money may be increased stress, possibly leading to brain alterations. Pathological gambling is indeed associated with an exaggerated sympathoadrenal tone suggestive of heightened levels of stress and arousal [94] at baseline [95], [96] and while engaged in gambling [8], [9], [97][100]. Subjects with PG have greater amygdala activation in response to the alpha-2 adrenergic antagonist, yohimbine [60]. Research in laboratory animals [101] and humans [102], [103] has shown that increased sympathetic activity may cause vasospasm and microthrombosis resulting in diminished cerebral perfusion. It would be of interest to test whether antiadrenergic agents (e.g., clonidine or prazosin) might moderate the NSSs observed here. However, the reversibility of NSSs is questionable [39], given that this has only been found in some [104] but not in all OCD patients [105][107], and not in patients with bipolar disorder [108] or schizophrenia [107], [109]. In sum, resolution of the risk factor vs. acquired origin interpretation of the observed NSSs in PG, as well as NSSs' possible response to treatment and/or their ability to predict [37], [110] such a response (as has been shown for OCD patients) will require prospective clinical trials.

The present design is unable to inform the question as to whether the same visual agnosia displayed by the PG subjects on the DROT is not likewise implicated in their constructional apraxia on the figure copying task. Disentangling this would require an exclusively motor processing task that does not involve visual input [27]. Such tasks are included in the full assessment battery of previously reported NSSs [27], which assesses motor coordination and both motor and sensory integration.

In conclusion, the data presented here shed light on the neurological function of patients with PG and suggest that NSS examination has heuristic value for illuminating brain abnormalities in this disorder. Pathological gambling offers a unique model as it represents an addictive behavior in the absence of the potentially confounding pharmacologically neurotoxic effects of chemical substances. Therefore these findings provide a new perspective in the exploration of addiction neurobiology.

Acknowledgments

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.

Author Contributions

TVG ET NBL JDS RKP. Conceived and designed the experiments: IE TVG RKP. Performed the experiments: ET. Analyzed the data: IE JDS RP NBL. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: TVG ET NBL. Wrote the paper: IE TVG JDS RKP.

References

  1. 1. Welte JW, Wieczorek WF, Barnes GM, Tidwell MC, Hoffman JH (2004) The relationship of ecological and geographic factors to gambling behavior and pathology. J Gambl Stud 20(4): 405–23. doi: 10.1007/s10899-004-4582-y
  2. 2. Gerstein DR, Murphy SA, Toce MT, Hoffmann J, Palmer A, et al.. (1999) Gambling impact and behavior study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago, National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
  3. 3. Potenza MN, Kosten TR, Rounsaville BJ (2001) Pathological gambling. JAMA 286(2): 141–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.2.141
  4. 4. Shaffer HJ (1997) The most important unresolved issue in the addictions: conceptual chaos. Subst Use Misuse 32(11): 1573–80. doi: 10.3109/10826089709055879
  5. 5. Cunningham-Williams RM, Grucza RA, Cottler LB, Womack SB, Books SJ, et al. (2005) Prevalence and predictors of pathological gambling: results from the St. Louis personality, health and lifestyle (SLPHL) study. J Psychiatr Res 39(4): 377–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2004.09.002
  6. 6. Grinols EL (2004) Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  7. 7. DeCaria CM, Hollander E, Grossman R, Wong CM, Mosovich SA, et al. (1996) Diagnosis, neurobiology, and treatment of pathological gambling. J Clin Psychiatry 57 Suppl 8: 80–3.
  8. 8. Moodie C, Finnigan F (1996) A comparison of the autonomic arousal of frequent, infrequent and non-gamblers while playing fruit machines. Addiction 100(1): 51–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00942.x
  9. 9. Meyer G, Schwertfeger J, Exton MS, Janssen OE, Knapp W, et al. (2004) Neuroendocrine response to casino gambling in problem gamblers. Psychoneuroendocrinology 29(10): 1272–80. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2004.03.005
  10. 10. Potenza MN, Leung HC, Blumberg HP, Peterson BS, Fulbright RK, et al. (2003) An fMRI Stroop task study of ventromedial prefrontal cortical function in pathological gamblers. Am J Psychiatry 160(11): 1990–4. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1990
  11. 11. Tanabe J, Thompson L, Claus E, Dalwani M, Hutchison K, et al. (2007) Prefrontal cortex activity is reduced in gambling and nongambling substance users during decision-making. Hum Brain Mapp 28(12): 1276–86. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20344
  12. 12. Brewer JA, Potenza MN (2008) The neurobiology and genetics of impulse control disorders: relationships to drug addictions. Biochem Pharmacol 75(1): 63–75. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2007.06.043
  13. 13. Topf JL, Yip SW, Potenza MN (2009) Pathological Gambling: Biological and Clinical Considerations. J Addict Med 3(3): 111–9. doi: 10.1097/adm.0b013e31819b7bff
  14. 14. Lawrence NS, Jollant F, O'Daly O, Zelaya F, Phillips ML (2009) Distinct roles of prefrontal cortical subregions in the Iowa Gambling Task. Cereb Cortex 19(5): 1134–43. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn154
  15. 15. Fineberg NA, Potenza MN, Chamberlain SR, Berlin HA, Menzies L, et al. (2010) Probing compulsive and impulsive behaviors, from animal models to endophenotypes: a narrative review. Neuropsychopharmacology 35(3): 591–604. doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.185
  16. 16. van Holst RJ, van den Brink W, Veltman DJ, Goudriaan AE (2010) Brain imaging studies in pathological gambling. Curr Psychiatry Rep 12(5): 418–25. doi: 10.1007/s11920-010-0141-7
  17. 17. Dannon PN, Kushnir T, Aizer A, Gross-Isseroff R, Kotler M, et al. (2011) Alternation learning in pathological gamblers: an fMRI Study. Brain Imaging Behav 5(1): 45–51. doi: 10.1007/s11682-010-9109-9
  18. 18. Kalechstein AD, Fong T, Rosenthal RJ, Davis A, Vanyo H, et al. (2007) Pathological gamblers demonstrate frontal lobe impairment consistent with that of methamphetamine-dependent individuals. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 19(3): 298–303. doi: 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.19.3.298
  19. 19. Hur JW, Shin NY, Kim SN, Jang JH, Choi JS, et al. (2012) Do pathological gambling and obsessive-compulsive disorder overlap? a neurocognitive perspective. CNS Spectr 1–7. doi: 10.1017/s1092852912000545
  20. 20. Marazziti D, Catena DM, Conversano C, Consoli G, Vivarelli L, et al. (2008) Executive function abnormalities in pathological gamblers. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 4: 7. doi: 10.1186/1745-0179-4-7
  21. 21. Forbush KT, Shaw M, Graeber MA, Hovick L, Meyer VJ, et al. (2005) Neuropsychological characteristics and personality traits in pathological gambling. CNS Spectr 13(4): 306–15.
  22. 22. van Holst RJ, van den Brink W, Veltman DJ, Goudriaan AE (2010) Why gamblers fail to win: a review of cognitive and neuroimaging findings in pathological gambling. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34(1): 87–107. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.07.007
  23. 23. Conversano C, Marazziti D, Carmassi C, Baldini S, Barnabei G, et al. (2012) Pathological gambling: a systematic review of biochemical, neuroimaging, and neuropsychological findings. Harv Rev Psychiatry 20(3): 130–48. doi: 10.3109/10673229.2012.694318
  24. 24. Carlton PL, Manowitz P, McBride H, Nora R, Swartzburg M, et al. (1987) Attention deficit disorder and pathological gambling. J Clin Psychiatry 48(12): 487–8. doi: 10.1016/0006-3223(85)90180-5
  25. 25. de GM, Enzi B, Prosch U, Gantman A, Tempelmann C, et al. (2010) Decreased neuronal activity in reward circuitry of pathological gamblers during processing of personal relevant stimuli. Hum Brain Mapp 2010 Nov 31(11): 1802–12. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20981
  26. 26. Gurvits TV, Gilbertson MW, Lasko NB, Tarhan AS, Simeon D, et al. (2000) Neurologic soft signs in chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 57(2): 181–6. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.57.2.181
  27. 27. Gurvits TV, Metzger LJ, Lasko NB, Cannistraro PA, Tarhan AS, et al. (2006) Subtle neurologic compromise as a vulnerability factor for combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder: results of a twin study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006 May 63(5): 571–6. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.5.571
  28. 28. Krebs MO, Gut-Fayand A, Bourdel M, Dischamp J, Olie J (2000) Validation and factorial structure of a standardized neurological examination assessing neurological soft signs in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 45(3): 245–60. doi: 10.1016/s0920-9964(99)00206-6
  29. 29. Smith RC, Kadewari RP, Rosenberger JR, Bhattacharyya A (1999) Nonresponding schizophrenia: differentiation by neurological soft signs and neuropsychological tests. Schizophr Bull 25(4): 813–25. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033421
  30. 30. Buchanan RW, Koeppl P, Breier A (1994) Stability of neurological signs with clozapine treatment. Biol Psychiatry 36(3): 198–200. doi: 10.1016/0006-3223(94)91225-4
  31. 31. Elman I, Chi WH, Gurvits TV, Ryan ET, Lasko NB, et al. (2008) Impaired reproduction of three-dimensional objects by cocaine-dependent subjects. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 20(4): 478–84. doi: 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.20.4.478
  32. 32. Bombin I, Arango C, Buchanan RW (2005) Significance and meaning of neurological signs in schizophrenia: two decades later. Schizophr Bull 31(4): 962–77. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbi028
  33. 33. Denckla MB (1985) Revised Neurological Examination for Subtle Signs. Psychopharmacol Bull 21(4): 773–800.
  34. 34. Woods BT, Short MP (1985) Neurological dimensions of psychiatry. Biol Psychiatry 20(2): 192–8. doi: 10.1016/0006-3223(85)90081-2
  35. 35. Goswami U, Gulrajani C, Varma A, Sharma A, Ferrier IN, et al. (2007) Soft neurological signs do not increase with age in euthymic bipolar subjects. J Affect Disord 103(1–3): 99–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2007.01.009
  36. 36. Negash A, Kebede D, Alem A, Melaku Z, Deyessa N, et al. (2004) Neurological soft signs in bipolar I disorder patients. J Affect Disord 80(2–3): 221–30. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0327(03)00116-2
  37. 37. Hollander E, Kaplan A, Schmeidler J, Yang H, Li D, et al. (2005) Neurological soft signs as predictors of treatment response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 17(4): 472–7. doi: 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.17.4.472
  38. 38. Hollander E, Kim S, Khanna S, Pallanti S (2007) Obsessive-compulsive disorder and obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders: diagnostic and dimensional issues. CNS Spectr 12(2 Suppl 3): 5–13. doi: 10.1002/0470861657.ch5
  39. 39. Jaafari N, de la Cruz LF, Grau M, Knowles E, Radua J, et al. (2012) Neurological soft signs in obsessive-compulsive disorder: two empirical studies and meta-analysis. Psychol Med 1–11. doi: 10.1017/s0033291712002012
  40. 40. Stein DJ, Hollander E, Liebowitz MR (1993) Neurobiology of impulsivity and the impulse control disorders. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 5(1): 9–17.
  41. 41. Heinrichs DW, Buchanan RW (1988) Significance and meaning of neurological signs in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 145(1): 11–8.
  42. 42. Patankar VC, Sangle JP, Shah HR, Dave M, Kamath RM (2012) Neurological soft signs in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Indian J Psychiatry 54(2): 159–65. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.99540
  43. 43. Dazzan P, Morgan KD, Orr KG, Hutchinson G, Chitnis X, et al. (2004) The structural brain correlates of neurological soft signs in AESOP first-episode psychoses study. Brain 127(Pt 1): 143–53. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh015
  44. 44. Denis C, Fatseas M, Auriacombe M (2012) Analyses related to the development of DSM-5 criteria for substance use related disorders: 3. An assessment of Pathological Gambling criteria. Drug Alcohol Depend 122(1–2): 22–7. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.09.006
  45. 45. Benowitz NL (1992) How toxic is cocaine? Ciba Found Symp 166: 125–43.
  46. 46. O'Connor AD, Rusyniak DE, Bruno A (2005) Cerebrovascular and cardiovascular complications of alcohol and sympathomimetic drug abuse. Med Clin North Am 89(6): 1343–58. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2005.06.010
  47. 47. Patrizi R, Pasceri V, Sciahbasi A, Summaria F, Rosano GM, et al. (2006) Evidence of cocaine-related coronary atherosclerosis in young patients with myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 47(10): 2120–2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.12.060
  48. 48. Neiman J, Haapaniemi HM, Hillbom M (2000) Neurological complications of drug abuse: pathophysiological mechanisms. Eur J Neurol 7(6): 595–606. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-1331.2000.00045.x
  49. 49. Lange RA, Hillis LD use (2001) Cardiovascular complications of cocaine. N Engl J Med 345(5): 351–8. doi: 10.1056/nejm200108023450507
  50. 50. Morales Vidal SG, Hornik A, Morgan C (2012) Cocaine induced hippocampi infarction. BMJ Case Rep doi: 10.1136/bcr.03.2012.5998
  51. 51. Robledo-Carmona J, Ortega-Jimenez MV, Garcia-Pinilla JM, Cabra B, de TE (2006) Severe cardiomyopathy associated to cocaine abuse. Int J Cardiol 112(1): 130–1. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2005.09.058
  52. 52. Steinhauer JR, Caulfield JB (2001) Spontaneous coronary artery dissection associated with cocaine use: a case report and brief review. Cardiovasc Pathol 10(3): 141–5. doi: 10.1016/s1054-8807(01)00074-6
  53. 53. Hsue PY, Salinas CL, Bolger AF, Benowitz NL, Waters DD (2002) Acute aortic dissection related to crack cocaine. Circulation 105(13): 1592–5. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000012524.44897.3a
  54. 54. Strickland TL, Miller BL, Kowell A, Stein R (1998) Neurobiology of cocaine-induced organic brain impairment: contributions from functional neuroimaging. Neuropsychol Rev 8(1): 1–9.
  55. 55. Nanda A, Vannemreddy P, Willis B, Kelley R (2006) Stroke in the young: relationship of active cocaine use with stroke mechanism and outcome. Acta Neurochir Suppl 96: 91–6. doi: 10.1007/3-211-30714-1_22
  56. 56. Westover AN, McBride S, Haley RW (2007) Stroke in young adults who abuse amphetamines or cocaine: a population-based study of hospitalized patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 64(4): 495–502. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.64.4.495
  57. 57. Hollander E, DeCaria CM, Aronowitz B, Klein DF, Liebowitz MR, et al. (1991) A pilot follow-up study of childhood soft signs and the development of adult psychopathology. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 3(2): 186–9.
  58. 58. Hollander E, Schiffman E, Cohen B, Rivera-Stein MA, Rosen W, et al. (1990) Signs of central nervous system dysfunction in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 47(1): 27–32. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810130029005
  59. 59. Gurvits TV, Lasko NB, Repak AL, Metzger LJ, Orr SP, Pitman RK (2002) Performance on visuospatial copying tasks in individuals with chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatry Res 112(3): 263–8. doi: 10.1016/s0165-1781(02)00234-2
  60. 60. Elman I, Becerra L, Tschibelu E, Yamamoto R, George E, et al. (2012) Yohimbine-induced amygdala activation in pathological gamblers: a pilot study. PLoS One 2012 7(2): e31118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031118
  61. 61. Elman I, Tschibelu E, Borsook D (2010) Psychosocial stress and its relationship to gambling urges in individuals with pathological gambling. Am J Addict 19(4): 332–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2010.00055.x
  62. 62. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon MM, Williams JBW (2002) User's Guide for the SCID-I: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders (Research version). New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York Biometrics Research Department.
  63. 63. Lesieur HR, Blume SB (1987) The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. Am J Psychiatry 144(9): 1184–8.
  64. 64. Wohl MJ, Matheson K, Young MM, Anisman H (2008) Cortisol rise following awakening among problem gamblers: dissociation from comorbid symptoms of depression and impulsivity. J Gambl Stud 24(1): 79–90. doi: 10.1007/s10899-007-9080-6
  65. 65. American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Text Revision. 4 ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing
  66. 66. McLellan AT, Luborsky L, Woody GE, O'Brien CP (1980) An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients. The Addiction Severity Index. J Nerv Ment Dis 168(1): 26–33. doi: 10.1097/00005053-198001000-00006
  67. 67. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1): 97–113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
  68. 68. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12(3): 189–98. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1166(199805)13:5<285::aid-gps753>3.3.co;2-m
  69. 69. Seymour GE (1976) The structure and predictive ability of the Cornell Medical Index for a normal sample. J Psychosom Res 20(5): 469–78. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(76)90011-8
  70. 70. Luria AR (1966) High Cortical Functions in Man. New York: Basic Books.
  71. 71. Strub RL, Black FW (2000) Constructional Ability. The Mental Status Examination in Neurology.Philadelphia: FA Davis Company.
  72. 72. Tonkonogy IM (1973) Introduction to Clinical Neuropsychology. Leningrad, USSR: Medicine.
  73. 73. Vasserman L, Dorofeeva S, Meerson Y (1997) Methods of Neuropsychological Diagnostics, Practice Manual. St. Petersburg, Stroylespechat.
  74. 74. Money J, Alexander D, Walker HT (1965) Road Map Test of Directional Sense. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
  75. 75. Inui T, Tanaka S, Okada T, Nishizawa S, Katayama M (2000) Neural substrates for depth perception of the Necker cube; a functional magnetic resonance imaging study in human subjects. Neurosci Lett 282(3): 145–8. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3940(00)00899-5
  76. 76. Critchley M (1969) The Parietal Lobes. New York, Hafner Publishing Company.
  77. 77. Nishida Y, Hayashi O, Iwami T, Kimura M, Kani K, et al. (2001) Stereopsis-processing regions in the human parieto-occipital cortex. Neuroreport 12(10): 2259–63. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200107200-00043
  78. 78. Koob GF, Volkow ND (2010) Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology 35(1): 217–38. doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.110
  79. 79. Elman I, Borsook D, Lukas SE (2006) Food intake and reward mechanisms in patients with schizophrenia: implications for metabolic disturbances and treatment with second-generation antipsychotic agents. Neuropsychopharmacology 31(10): 2091–120. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1301051
  80. 80. Freedman DJ, Assad JA (2006) Experience-dependent representation of visual categories in parietal cortex. Nature 2006 443(7107): 85–8. doi: 10.1038/nature05078
  81. 81. Aron JL, Paulus MP (2007) Location, location: using functional magnetic resonance imaging to pinpoint brain differences relevant to stimulant use. Addiction 102 Suppl 1: 33–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01778.x
  82. 82. Thalemann R, Wolfling K, Grusser SM (2007) Specific cue reactivity on computer game-related cues in excessive gamers. Behav Neurosci 121(3): 614–8. doi: 10.1037/0735-7044.121.3.614
  83. 83. Peralta V, de Jalon EG, Campos MS, Basterra V, Sanchez-Torres A, et al. (2010) Risk factors, pre-morbid functioning and episode correlates of neurological soft signs in drug-naive patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Psychol Med 1–11. doi: 10.1017/s0033291710001856
  84. 84. Jones P, Rodgers B, Murray R, Marmot M (1994) Child development risk factors for adult schizophrenia in the British 1946 birth cohort. Lancet 344(8934): 1398–402. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)90569-x
  85. 85. Dazzan P, Lloyd T, Morgan KD, Zanelli J, Morgan C, et al. (2008) Neurological abnormalities and cognitive ability in first-episode psychosis. Br J Psychiatry 2008 193(3): 197–202. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.045450
  86. 86. Prasad KM, Sanders R, Sweeney J, Montrose D, Diwadkar V, et al. (2009) Neurological abnormalities among offspring of persons with schizophrenia: relation to premorbid psychopathology. Schizophr Res 108(1–3): 163–9. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2008.11.019
  87. 87. Grisham JR, Fullana MA, Mataix-Cols D, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, et al. (2011) Risk factors prospectively associated with adult obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychol Med 1–12. doi: 10.1017/s0033291711000894
  88. 88. Rieder RO, Nichols PL (1979) Offspring of schizophrenics. III. Hyperactivity and neurological soft signs. Arch Gen Psychiatry 36(6): 665–74. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1979.01780060055006
  89. 89. Chen YL, Chen YH, Mak FL (2000) Soft neurological signs in schizophrenic patients and their nonpsychotic siblings. J Nerv Ment Dis 188(2): 84–9. doi: 10.1097/00005053-200002000-00004
  90. 90. Ismail B, Cantor-Graae E, McNeil TF (1998) Minor physical anomalies in schizophrenic patients and their siblings. Am J Psychiatry 155(12): 1695–702. doi: 10.1016/s0920-9964(97)88771-3
  91. 91. Egan MF, Hyde TM, Bonomo JB, Mattay VS, Bigelow LB, et al. (2001) Relative risk of neurological signs in siblings of patients with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 158(11): 1827–34. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.158.11.1827
  92. 92. Lobo DS, Kennedy JL (2009) Genetic aspects of pathological gambling: a complex disorder with shared genetic vulnerabilities. Addiction 104(9): 1454–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02671.x
  93. 93. Langenbucher J, Bavly L, Labouvie E, Sanjuan PM, Martin CS (2001) Clinical features of pathological gambling in an addictions treatment cohort. Psychol Addict Behav 15(1): 77–9. doi: 10.1037/0893-164x.15.1.77
  94. 94. Goudriaan AE, Oosterlaan J, de BE, van den Brink W (2004) Pathological gambling: a comprehensive review of biobehavioral findings. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 28(2): 123–41. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.03.001
  95. 95. Bergh C, Eklund T, Sodersten P, Nordin C (1997) Altered dopamine function in pathological gambling. Psychol Med 27(2): 473–5. doi: 10.1017/s0033291796003789
  96. 96. Roy A, Adinoff B, Roehrich L, Lamparski D, Custer R, et al. (1998) Pathological gambling. A psychobiological study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 45(4): 369–73. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1988.01800280085011
  97. 97. Krueger TH, Schedlowski M, Meyer G (2005) Cortisol and heart rate measures during casino gambling in relation to impulsivity. Neuropsychobiology 52(4): 206–11. doi: 10.1159/000089004
  98. 98. Meyer G, Hauffa BP, Schedlowski M, Pawlak C, Stadler MA, et al. (2000) Casino gambling increases heart rate and salivary cortisol in regular gamblers. Biol Psychiatry 48(9): 948–53. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3223(00)00888-x
  99. 99. Sharpe L, Tarrier N, Schotte D, Spence SH (1995) The role of autonomic arousal in problem gambling. Addiction 90(11): 1529–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1995.tb02815.x
  100. 100. Sharpe L (2004) Patterns of autonomic arousal in imaginal situations of winning and losing in problem gambling. J Gambl Stud 20(1): 95–104. doi: 10.1023/b:jogs.0000016706.96540.43
  101. 101. Tuor UI (1990) Local distribution of the effects of sympathetic stimulation on cerebral blood flow in the rat. Brain Res 529(1–2): 224–31. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(90)90831-u
  102. 102. Tschuor C, Asmis LM, Lenzlinger PM, Tanner M, Harter L, et al. (2008) In vitro norepinephrine significantly activates isolated platelets from healthy volunteers and critically ill patients following severe traumatic brain injury. Crit Care 12(3): R80. doi: 10.1186/cc6931
  103. 103. Ibrahim GM, Macdonald RL (2012) Electrocardiographic changes predict angiographic vasospasm after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke 43(8): 2102–7. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.112.658153
  104. 104. Mergl R, Mavrogiorgou P, Juckel G, Zaudig M, Hegerl U (2004) Effects of sertraline on kinematic aspects of hand movements in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 171(2): 179–85. doi: 10.1007/s00213-003-1568-x
  105. 105. Thienemann M, Koran LM (1995) Do soft signs predict treatment outcome in obsessive-compulsive disorder? J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 7(2): 218–22.
  106. 106. Caramelli P, de Lima MA, Stip E, Bacheschi LA (1996) Neurological examination in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Sao Paulo Med J 114(5): 1255–8.
  107. 107. Karadag F, Tumkaya S, Kirtas D, Efe M, Alacam H, et al. (2011) Neurological soft signs in obsessive compulsive disorder with good and poor insight. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 35(4): 1074–9. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2011.03.003
  108. 108. Cherian A, Kuruvilla K (1989) Prevalence of neurological “soft signs’ in affective disorder and their correlation with response to treatment. Indian J Psychiatry 31(3): 224–9.
  109. 109. Chan RC, Xu T, Heinrichs RW, Yu Y, Wang Y (2010) Neurological soft signs in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull 36(6): 1089–104. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbp011
  110. 110. Mergl R, Mavrogiorgou P, Juckel G, Zaudig M, Hegerl U (2005) Can a subgroup of OCD patients with motor abnormalities and poor therapeutic response be identified? Psychopharmacology (Berl) 179(4): 826–37. doi: 10.1007/s00213-004-2115-0