BACKGROUND: The low level of response (LR) or sensitivity to alcohol is genetically influenced and predicts heavy drinking and alcohol problems. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies using cognitive tasks suggest that subjects with a low-LR process cognitive information differently after placebo and alcohol than those with a high LR, but no studies have evaluated whether similar LR group differences are seen during an emotional processing task. METHODS: The fMRI data were gathered from 116 nonalcoholic subjects (60 women) after oral placebo or approximately .7 mL/kg of ethanol while performing a modified emotional faces processing task. These included 58 low- and high-LR pairs matched on demography and aspects of substance use. RESULTS: Blood alcohol levels and task performance were similar across LR groups, but low-LR subjects consumed approximately .8 drinks more/occasion. Thirteen brain regions (mostly the middle and inferior frontal gyri, cingulate, and insula) showed significant LR group or LR × placebo/alcohol condition interactions for emotional (mostly happy) faces relative to non-face trials. Low-LR subjects generally showed decreasing blood-oxygen level-dependent response contrasts across placebo to alcohol, whereas high LR showed increasing contrasts from placebo to alcohol, even after controlling for drinking quantities and alcohol-related changes in cerebral blood flow. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, LR group fMRI differences are as prominent during an emotional face task as during cognitive paradigms. Low-LR individuals processed both types of information in a manner that might contribute to an impaired ability to recognize modest levels of alcohol intoxication in a range of life situations.
BACKGROUND: The low level of response (LR) or sensitivity to alcohol is genetically influenced and predicts heavy drinking and alcohol problems. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies using cognitive tasks suggest that subjects with a low-LR process cognitive information differently after placebo and alcohol than those with a high LR, but no studies have evaluated whether similar LR group differences are seen during an emotional processing task. METHODS: The fMRI data were gathered from 116 nonalcoholic subjects (60 women) after oral placebo or approximately .7 mL/kg of ethanol while performing a modified emotional faces processing task. These included 58 low- and high-LR pairs matched on demography and aspects of substance use. RESULTS: Blood alcohol levels and task performance were similar across LR groups, but low-LR subjects consumed approximately .8 drinks more/occasion. Thirteen brain regions (mostly the middle and inferior frontal gyri, cingulate, and insula) showed significant LR group or LR × placebo/alcohol condition interactions for emotional (mostly happy) faces relative to non-face trials. Low-LR subjects generally showed decreasing blood-oxygen level-dependent response contrasts across placebo to alcohol, whereas high LR showed increasing contrasts from placebo to alcohol, even after controlling for drinking quantities and alcohol-related changes in cerebral blood flow. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, LR group fMRI differences are as prominent during an emotional face task as during cognitive paradigms. Low-LR individuals processed both types of information in a manner that might contribute to an impaired ability to recognize modest levels of alcohol intoxication in a range of life situations.
Authors: Marc A Schuckit; Susan Tapert; Scott C Matthews; Martin P Paulus; Neil J Tolentino; Tom L Smith; Ryan S Trim; Shana Hall; Alan Simmons Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Vijay A Ramchandani; Sean O'connor; Yehuda Neumark; Ulrich S Zimmermann; Sandra L Morzorati; Harriet de Wit Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Ryan S Trim; Alan N Simmons; Neil J Tolentino; Shana A Hall; Scott C Matthews; Shannon K Robinson; Tom L Smith; Claudia B Padula; Martin P Paulus; Susan F Tapert; Marc A Schuckit Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Xianzhang Hu; Gabor Oroszi; Jeffrey Chun; Tom L Smith; David Goldman; Marc A Schuckit Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Ahmad R Hariri; Venkata S Mattay; Alessandro Tessitore; Bhaskar Kolachana; Francesco Fera; David Goldman; Michael F Egan; Daniel R Weinberger Journal: Science Date: 2002-07-19 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Marc A Schuckit; Tom L Smith; Brinda K Rana; Lee Ann Mendoza; Dennis Clarke; Mari Kawamura Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Kelly E Courtney; Maria Alejandra Infante; Gregory G Brown; Susan F Tapert; Alan N Simmons; Tom L Smith; Marc A Schuckit Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Marc A Schuckit; Tom L Smith; Martin P Paulus; Susan F Tapert; Alan N Simmons; Neil J Tolentino; Alexandra Shafir Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.455