The conditions of the second group are similar to those above, but choosing A or B would now result in the immediate delivery of two pellets to the rats.

1) A majority of good decision-makers, all having a strong preference for the advantageous options (58%)

2) Poor decision-makers with a preference for the lesser options (25%)\

3) Those showing no preference (17%)

Interestingly, increasing the difficulty of the task showed no difference in the proportions of the good and bad decision-makers

1) reward - food is given to the rat

2) punishment - timeout. similar to those discussed in previous studies.

3) omission - if the rats fail to make a response

4) premature responses - punished by a 5-second timeout.

            From this research, I learned how the cognitive deficits that are seen in humans with pathological gambling are also seen in rats in the lab. Researching the effects of gambling has taught me that there have been studies that have tested the benefits of using opioids to alleviate pathological gambling deficits. From the perspective of neuroscience, this research impacted the way that I understand the human brain. As a human being, doing this research has made me want to encourage others to stop gambling, as the effects of it are detrimental, hurting decision-making and cognitive processes.

            The rat slot machine task and the rat betting task allowed Cocker and Winstanley (2015) to recognize the role dopamine has on the brain of a pathological gambler. Similar to this, a study done by Choi et al. (2012) found dopamine to be apparent in the ventromedial caudate nucleus when human participants were anticipating gain or loss. Comparing these two findings is important as it suggests that the cognitive mechanisms that are observed in the animal models are also relevant in humans, making the results more generalizable to human pathological gambling.

            Clark et al. (2013) discuss the importance of attempting to model gambling decisions that are coherent to the choices that are frequent in human neuropsychology and cognitive psychology. This article emphasizes the use of the Iowa gambling task, praising its ability to detect the cognitive functions and processes that are involved in pathological gambling. Additionally, research done by Ouerchefani et al. (2019) highlights the benefits of using the Iowa gambling task, highlighting the implications that can be made from the results of this task. This recognition from other scholars provides Rivalan et al. (2009) with a strong theoretical framework that supports the validity of their task, adding credibility to the experimental design and its potential in the field of neuroscience.

Naltrexone can block opioid receptors, which are heavily involved in the brain's reward system, and reinforce gratifying behaviours, providing a rationale behind using this drug as a method (Grant et al., 2003). With the primary mechanism of antagonizing these receptors, naltrexone has been tested in psychological disorders and addictive behaviours where a consistent symptom that diagnosed individuals face is urges (Toneatto et al., 2010). These disorders include borderline personality disorder, bulimia nervosa or obesity, as well as alcoholism or nicotine addiction. There have been mixed results regarding the efficacy of naltrexone in treating these disorders, sparking interest in the field to obtain significant results (Grant et al., 2003). This current study done by Di Ciano and Le Foll (2016) has taken this well-rounded information regarding Naltrexone and utilized it to their benefit, creating research that could offer a new avenue for treating pathological gambling.