E resultant cohort is 49 male. Sixty-four percent of subjects are White, 24 are African American, 9 are Asian, and 3 are other (including 10 who self-identify as both African American and White). Nine percent are Hispanic. Subject households consist of a median of 4 individuals, and 64 of subjects have caregivers who are married. The SES of our cohort is 40.6 ?15.4 (the inverted mean) which corresponds to the lower range of middle-class (Hollingshead and Redlich 2007). Median years of parental education is 14. Three hundred and seventy three participants (96 ) completed the second assessment and 367 (95 ) completed the third assessment. At Assessment 1, participant mean age was 11.4 ?0.9, Assessment 2, 12.6 ?0.9, and at Assessment 3, 13.5 ?0.9 years. At enrollment, 10 were in grade 4, 49 in grade 5, 26 in grade 6, and the rest (15 ) in grade 7. Procedure/Measures At each annual assessment, participants were tested one-on-one by examiners trained by psychologists to administer all questionnaires and tasks in a standardized manner. Demographic information was collected using semi-structured interview at each assessment. Tasks were administered using pencil and paper as well as touch-screen laptops using ePrime (Schneider et al. 2002) and MediaLab (Jarvis 2004) and audio-computer assisted selfinterviewing (ACASI) method of both visual and aural presentation to ensure maximum comprehension and confidentiality (Metzger et al. 2000).Frequency and diversity of CibinetideMedChemExpress Cibinetide gambling for money were assessed through self-report questionnaires inquiring about seven types of gambling behaviors, such as playing cards, placing bets on sports, and purchasing lottery tickets. Lifetime experience with gambling was assessed with yes/no questions such as “Have you ever bet on cards for money?”. Subjects responding “yes” to lifetime questions completed a more detailed assessment of frequency of gambling including questions such as, “How often do you place bets on sports?”, rated on a 7-point scale with responses ranging from “tried only once” to “daily”. For each annual assessment, responses to the gambling questions were collapsed to form one variable with three possible conditions: no gambling, no recent gambling, and recent gambling in the last 30 days. Executive Cognitive Function Three frontal systems associated with executive cognitive functions were evaluated at each of the assessments: working memory, which is the ability to hold the goals of a complex task in mind; cognitive control, which is responsible for inhibitory control and conflict monitoring; and reward processing, which is the use of positive and negative Actidione chemical information feedback to guide responses. For Assessment 1, nine tasks were administered, four for working memory (Letter Two-Back, Corsi Block Tapping, Digit Span from Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition [WISC-IV], and Spatial Working Memory), three for cognitive control (Counting Stroop, Eriksen Flanker, and Stop Signal), and two for reward processing (Reversal Learning and Balloon Analogue Risk Task [BART]) (Romer et al. 2009). All tasks were administered using e-Prime, except for two: 1) the Digit Span task from the WISC-IV (Wechsler 2003), which was administered in standard Wechsler aural format using paper and pencil; and 2) the BART, which was administered using software available from Lejuez (Hunt et al. 2005; Lejuez et al. 2002, 2003). At Assessment 2, because of concern for ceiling effects on the Letter Two-Back task, we add.E resultant cohort is 49 male. Sixty-four percent of subjects are White, 24 are African American, 9 are Asian, and 3 are other (including 10 who self-identify as both African American and White). Nine percent are Hispanic. Subject households consist of a median of 4 individuals, and 64 of subjects have caregivers who are married. The SES of our cohort is 40.6 ?15.4 (the inverted mean) which corresponds to the lower range of middle-class (Hollingshead and Redlich 2007). Median years of parental education is 14. Three hundred and seventy three participants (96 ) completed the second assessment and 367 (95 ) completed the third assessment. At Assessment 1, participant mean age was 11.4 ?0.9, Assessment 2, 12.6 ?0.9, and at Assessment 3, 13.5 ?0.9 years. At enrollment, 10 were in grade 4, 49 in grade 5, 26 in grade 6, and the rest (15 ) in grade 7. Procedure/Measures At each annual assessment, participants were tested one-on-one by examiners trained by psychologists to administer all questionnaires and tasks in a standardized manner. Demographic information was collected using semi-structured interview at each assessment. Tasks were administered using pencil and paper as well as touch-screen laptops using ePrime (Schneider et al. 2002) and MediaLab (Jarvis 2004) and audio-computer assisted selfinterviewing (ACASI) method of both visual and aural presentation to ensure maximum comprehension and confidentiality (Metzger et al. 2000).Frequency and diversity of gambling for money were assessed through self-report questionnaires inquiring about seven types of gambling behaviors, such as playing cards, placing bets on sports, and purchasing lottery tickets. Lifetime experience with gambling was assessed with yes/no questions such as “Have you ever bet on cards for money?”. Subjects responding “yes” to lifetime questions completed a more detailed assessment of frequency of gambling including questions such as, “How often do you place bets on sports?”, rated on a 7-point scale with responses ranging from “tried only once” to “daily”. For each annual assessment, responses to the gambling questions were collapsed to form one variable with three possible conditions: no gambling, no recent gambling, and recent gambling in the last 30 days. Executive Cognitive Function Three frontal systems associated with executive cognitive functions were evaluated at each of the assessments: working memory, which is the ability to hold the goals of a complex task in mind; cognitive control, which is responsible for inhibitory control and conflict monitoring; and reward processing, which is the use of positive and negative feedback to guide responses. For Assessment 1, nine tasks were administered, four for working memory (Letter Two-Back, Corsi Block Tapping, Digit Span from Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition [WISC-IV], and Spatial Working Memory), three for cognitive control (Counting Stroop, Eriksen Flanker, and Stop Signal), and two for reward processing (Reversal Learning and Balloon Analogue Risk Task [BART]) (Romer et al. 2009). All tasks were administered using e-Prime, except for two: 1) the Digit Span task from the WISC-IV (Wechsler 2003), which was administered in standard Wechsler aural format using paper and pencil; and 2) the BART, which was administered using software available from Lejuez (Hunt et al. 2005; Lejuez et al. 2002, 2003). At Assessment 2, because of concern for ceiling effects on the Letter Two-Back task, we add.
