Gregory J DiGirolamo1, David Smelson2, Nathan Guevremont3. 1. Department of Psychology, College of the Holy Cross, 1 College Street, Worcester, MA 01610, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Medical School, University of Massachusetts, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01605, USA. Electronic address: gdigirol@holycross.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Medical School, University of Massachusetts, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01605, USA; Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Medical School, University of Massachusetts, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01605, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cue-induced craving is a clinically important aspect of cocaine addiction influencing ongoing use and sobriety. However, little is known about the relationship between cue-induced craving and cognitive control toward cocaine cues. While studies suggest that cocaine users have an attentional bias toward cocaine cues, the present study extends this research by testing if cocaine use disorder patients (CDPs) can control their eye movements toward cocaine cues and whether their response varied by cue-induced craving intensity. METHODS: Thirty CDPs underwent a cue exposure procedure to dichotomize them into high and low craving groups followed by a modified antisaccade task in which subjects were asked to control their eye movements toward either a cocaine or neutral drug cue by looking away from the suddenly presented cue. The relationship between breakdowns in cognitive control (as measured by eye errors) and cue-induced craving (changes in self-reported craving following cocaine cue exposure) was investigated. RESULTS: CDPs overall made significantly more errors toward cocaine cues compared to neutral cues, with higher cravers making significantly more errors than lower cravers even though they did not differ significantly in addiction severity, impulsivity, anxiety, or depression levels. Cue-induced craving was the only specific and significant predictor of subsequent errors toward cocaine cues. CONCLUSION: Cue-induced craving directly and specifically relates to breakdowns of cognitive control toward cocaine cues in CDPs, with higher cravers being more susceptible. Hence, it may be useful identifying high cravers and target treatment toward curbing craving to decrease the likelihood of a subsequent breakdown in control.
INTRODUCTION: Cue-induced craving is a clinically important aspect of cocaine addiction influencing ongoing use and sobriety. However, little is known about the relationship between cue-induced craving and cognitive control toward cocaine cues. While studies suggest that cocaine users have an attentional bias toward cocaine cues, the present study extends this research by testing if cocaine use disorderpatients (CDPs) can control their eye movements toward cocaine cues and whether their response varied by cue-induced craving intensity. METHODS: Thirty CDPs underwent a cue exposure procedure to dichotomize them into high and low craving groups followed by a modified antisaccade task in which subjects were asked to control their eye movements toward either a cocaine or neutral drug cue by looking away from the suddenly presented cue. The relationship between breakdowns in cognitive control (as measured by eye errors) and cue-induced craving (changes in self-reported craving following cocaine cue exposure) was investigated. RESULTS:CDPs overall made significantly more errors toward cocaine cues compared to neutral cues, with higher cravers making significantly more errors than lower cravers even though they did not differ significantly in addiction severity, impulsivity, anxiety, or depression levels. Cue-induced craving was the only specific and significant predictor of subsequent errors toward cocaine cues. CONCLUSION: Cue-induced craving directly and specifically relates to breakdowns of cognitive control toward cocaine cues in CDPs, with higher cravers being more susceptible. Hence, it may be useful identifying high cravers and target treatment toward curbing craving to decrease the likelihood of a subsequent breakdown in control.
Authors: David Smelson; Kevin W Chen; Douglas Ziedonis; Ken Andes; Amanda Lennox; Lanora Callahan; Stephanie Rodrigues; David Eisenberg Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Reshmi Marhe; Maartje Luijten; Ben J M van de Wetering; Marion Smits; Ingmar H A Franken Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: H Garavan; J Pankiewicz; A Bloom; J K Cho; L Sperry; T J Ross; B J Salmeron; R Risinger; D Kelley; E A Stein Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Gregory J DiGirolamo; Gerardo Gonzalez; David Smelson; Nathan Guevremont; Michael I Andre; Pooja O Patnaik; Zachary R Zaniewski Journal: J Dual Diagn Date: 2017-11-09
Authors: Elise E DeVito; Brian D Kiluk; Charla Nich; Maria Mouratidis; Kathleen M Carroll Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: M M Moran-Santa Maria; N L Baker; A L McRae-Clark; J J Prisciandaro; K T Brady Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Gregory J DiGirolamo; Ellen J Sophis; Jennifer L Daffron; Gerardo Gonzalez; Mauricio Romero-Gonzalez; Sean A Gillespie Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 3.913