Michael J Wesley1, Joshua A Lile2, Mark T Fillmore3, Linda J Porrino4. 1. Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA. Electronic address: michael.wesley@uky.edu. 2. Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences, Lexington, KY, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences, Lexington, KY, USA. 4. Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Determining the neurobehavioral profiles that differentiate heavy drinkers who are and are not alcohol dependent will inform treatment efforts. Working memory is linked to substance use disorders and can serve as a representation of the demand placed on the neurophysiology associated with cognitive control. METHODS: Behavior and brain activity (via fMRI) were recorded during an N-Back working memory task in controls (CTRL), nondependent heavy drinkers (A-ND) and dependent heavy drinkers (A-D). Typical and novel step-wise analyses examined profiles of working memory load and increasing task demand, respectively. RESULTS: Performance was significantly decreased in A-D during high working memory load (2-Back), compared to CTRL and A-ND. Analysis of brain activity during high load (0-Back vs. 2- Back) showed greater responses in the dorsal lateral and medial prefrontal cortices of A-D than CTRL, suggesting increased but failed compensation. The step-wise analysis revealed that the transition to Low Demand (0-Back to 1-Back) was associated with robust increases and decreases in cognitive control and default-mode brain regions, respectively, in A-D and A-ND but not CTRL. The transition to High Demand (1-Back to 2-Back) resulted in additional engagement of these networks in A-ND and CTRL, but not A-D. CONCLUSION: Heavy drinkers engaged working memory neural networks at lower demand than controls. As demand increased, nondependent heavy drinkers maintained control performance but relied on additional neurophysiological resources, and dependent heavy drinkers did not display further resource engagement and had poorer performance. These results support targeting these brain areas for treatment interventions.
BACKGROUND: Determining the neurobehavioral profiles that differentiate heavy drinkers who are and are not alcohol dependent will inform treatment efforts. Working memory is linked to substance use disorders and can serve as a representation of the demand placed on the neurophysiology associated with cognitive control. METHODS: Behavior and brain activity (via fMRI) were recorded during an N-Backworking memory task in controls (CTRL), nondependent heavy drinkers (A-ND) and dependent heavy drinkers (A-D). Typical and novel step-wise analyses examined profiles of working memory load and increasing task demand, respectively. RESULTS: Performance was significantly decreased in A-D during high working memory load (2-Back), compared to CTRL and A-ND. Analysis of brain activity during high load (0-Back vs. 2- Back) showed greater responses in the dorsal lateral and medial prefrontal cortices of A-D than CTRL, suggesting increased but failed compensation. The step-wise analysis revealed that the transition to Low Demand (0-Back to 1-Back) was associated with robust increases and decreases in cognitive control and default-mode brain regions, respectively, in A-D and A-ND but not CTRL. The transition to High Demand (1-Back to 2-Back) resulted in additional engagement of these networks in A-ND and CTRL, but not A-D. CONCLUSION: Heavy drinkers engaged working memory neural networks at lower demand than controls. As demand increased, nondependent heavy drinkers maintained control performance but relied on additional neurophysiological resources, and dependent heavy drinkers did not display further resource engagement and had poorer performance. These results support targeting these brain areas for treatment interventions.
Authors: Natalia Albein-Urios; José Miguel Martinez-González; Oscar Lozano; Luke Clark; Antonio Verdejo-García Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Claire E Wilcox; Charlene J Dekonenko; Andrew R Mayer; Michael P Bogenschutz; Jessica A Turner Journal: Rev Neurosci Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.353
Authors: Kristen P Lindgren; Christian S Hendershot; Jason J Ramirez; Edward Bernat; Mauricio Rangel-Gomez; Kirsten P Peterson; James G Murphy Journal: Clin Psychol Rev Date: 2018-04-11
Authors: D Cutuli; D Ladrón de Guevara-Miranda; E Castilla-Ortega; L J Santín; P Sampedro-Piquero Journal: Curr Neuropharmacol Date: 2019 Impact factor: 7.363
Authors: Filipa Raposo Pereira; Minni T B McMaster; Nikki Polderman; Yvon D A T de Vries; Wim van den Brink; Guido A van Wingen Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.881