Clifford M Cassidy1, Mathieu B Brodeur2, Martin Lepage2, Ashok Malla2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Que., Canada and the Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Que., Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dysfunctional reward processing is present in individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SSD) and may confer vulnerability to addiction. Our objective was to identify a deficit in patients with SSD on response to rewarding stimuli and determine whether this deficit predicts cannabis use. METHODS: We divided a group of patients with SSD and nonpsychotic controls into cannabis users and nonusers. Response to emotional and cannabis-associated visual stimuli was assessed using self-report, event-related potentials (using the late positive potential [LPP]), facial electromyography and skin-conductance response. RESULTS: Our sample comprised 35 patients with SSD and 35 nonpsychotic controls. Compared with controls, the patients with SSD showed blunted LPP response to pleasant stimuli (p = 0.003). Across measures, cannabis-using controls showed greater response to pleasant stimuli than to cannabis stimuli whereas cannabis-using patients showed little bias toward pleasant stimuli. Reduced LPP response to pleasant stimuli was predictive of more frequent subsequent cannabis use (β = -0.24, p = 0.034). LIMITATIONS: It is not clear if the deficit associated with cannabis use is specific to rewarding stimuli or nonspecific to any kind of emotionally salient stimuli. CONCLUSION: The LPP captures a reward-processing deficit in patients with SSD and shows potential as a biomarker for identifying patients at risk of heavy cannabis use.
BACKGROUND: Dysfunctional reward processing is present in individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SSD) and may confer vulnerability to addiction. Our objective was to identify a deficit in patients with SSD on response to rewarding stimuli and determine whether this deficit predicts cannabis use. METHODS: We divided a group of patients with SSD and nonpsychotic controls into cannabis users and nonusers. Response to emotional and cannabis-associated visual stimuli was assessed using self-report, event-related potentials (using the late positive potential [LPP]), facial electromyography and skin-conductance response. RESULTS: Our sample comprised 35 patients with SSD and 35 nonpsychotic controls. Compared with controls, the patients with SSD showed blunted LPP response to pleasant stimuli (p = 0.003). Across measures, cannabis-using controls showed greater response to pleasant stimuli than to cannabis stimuli whereas cannabis-using patients showed little bias toward pleasant stimuli. Reduced LPP response to pleasant stimuli was predictive of more frequent subsequent cannabis use (β = -0.24, p = 0.034). LIMITATIONS: It is not clear if the deficit associated with cannabis use is specific to rewarding stimuli or nonspecific to any kind of emotionally salient stimuli. CONCLUSION: The LPP captures a reward-processing deficit in patients with SSD and shows potential as a biomarker for identifying patients at risk of heavy cannabis use.
Authors: Nina B L Urban; Mark Slifstein; Judy L Thompson; Xiaoyan Xu; Ragy R Girgis; Sonia Raheja; Margaret Haney; Anissa Abi-Dargham Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2012-01-29 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Francesco Versace; Cho Y Lam; Jeffrey M Engelmann; Jason D Robinson; Jennifer A Minnix; Victoria L Brown; Paul M Cinciripini Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Stanley Zammit; Theresa H M Moore; Anne Lingford-Hughes; Thomas R E Barnes; Peter B Jones; Margaret Burke; Glyn Lewis Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Thibaut Dondaine; Pierre Philippot; Jean-Marie Batail; Florence Le Jeune; Paul Sauleau; Sophie Drapier; Marc Vérin; Bruno Millet; Dominique Drapier; Gabriel Robert Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: Jeffrey S Bedwell; Geoffrey F Potts; Diane C Gooding; Benjamin J Trachik; Chi C Chan; Christopher C Spencer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 3.240