Anita Cservenka1, Kelly E Courtney2, Dara G Ghahremani3, Kent E Hutchison4, Lara A Ray5,6,7. 1. School of Psychological Science, Oregon State University, 2950 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, 9500 Gilman Drive #0862, La Jolla, San Diego, CA 92093, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California,Los Angeles, 37-356 Semel Institute, Box 951759, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1759, USA. 4. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado, Boulder, Muenzinger Psychology, 345 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0345, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, 37-356 Semel Institute, Box 951759, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1759, USA. 6. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1285 Franz Hall, Box 951563, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563, USA. 7. Brain Research Institute, University of California, Box 951761, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1761, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To advance translational studies of the role of reward prediction error (PE) in alcohol use disorder, the present study sought to develop and conduct an initial test of an alcohol-specific PE task paradigm using functional magnetic resonance imaging in humans. METHODS: Alcohol dependent or social drinkers received small tastes of their preferred alcohol beverage or control beverage, with preceding visual cues indicating whether alcohol (or water) would be delivered. To assess both positive and negative PE signals, expectancies were systematically violated in both positive (i.e. expecting water and receiving alcohol) and negative (i.e. expecting alcohol and receiving water) directions. Exploratory trial-by-trial analyses were conducted to explore temporal fluctuations of activation within a priori-defined regions of interest that have been implicated in cue reactivity and PE processing. RESULTS: Across the entire sample of participants, positive PE-related brain activation was found in a large cluster comprised of frontal lobe regions, as well as insular cortex, and motor/sensory cortices. Compared to social drinking subjects, alcohol dependent subjects had greater positive PE-related brain activity in left superior parietal lobule, lateral occipital cortex and postcentral gyrus. Exploratory trial-by-trial analyses indicated differences in activation specific to type of taste, mostly at earlier trials. CONCLUSIONS: This task-development oriented pilot study found that PE signaling may not be detected in expected brain regions when image analyses average across all PE trials of the task. Rather, a trial-by-trial analysis approach may help detect sparse, temporally distinct PE signaling in expected reward processing regions. SHORT SUMMARY: This fMRI study of reward prediction error found greater positive prediction error-related activity (i.e. expecting water taste, receiving alcohol taste) in alcohol dependent individuals relative to social drinkers in parietal and occipital cortices. Trial-by-trial analyses may be able to better detect sparse prediction error signaling in expected reward processing regions.
AIMS: To advance translational studies of the role of reward prediction error (PE) in alcohol use disorder, the present study sought to develop and conduct an initial test of an alcohol-specific PE task paradigm using functional magnetic resonance imaging in humans. METHODS: Alcohol dependent or social drinkers received small tastes of their preferred alcohol beverage or control beverage, with preceding visual cues indicating whether alcohol (or water) would be delivered. To assess both positive and negative PE signals, expectancies were systematically violated in both positive (i.e. expecting water and receiving alcohol) and negative (i.e. expecting alcohol and receiving water) directions. Exploratory trial-by-trial analyses were conducted to explore temporal fluctuations of activation within a priori-defined regions of interest that have been implicated in cue reactivity and PE processing. RESULTS: Across the entire sample of participants, positive PE-related brain activation was found in a large cluster comprised of frontal lobe regions, as well as insular cortex, and motor/sensory cortices. Compared to social drinking subjects, alcohol dependent subjects had greater positive PE-related brain activity in left superior parietal lobule, lateral occipital cortex and postcentral gyrus. Exploratory trial-by-trial analyses indicated differences in activation specific to type of taste, mostly at earlier trials. CONCLUSIONS: This task-development oriented pilot study found that PE signaling may not be detected in expected brain regions when image analyses average across all PE trials of the task. Rather, a trial-by-trial analysis approach may help detect sparse, temporally distinct PE signaling in expected reward processing regions. SHORT SUMMARY: This fMRI study of reward prediction error found greater positive prediction error-related activity (i.e. expecting water taste, receiving alcohol taste) in alcohol dependent individuals relative to social drinkers in parietal and occipital cortices. Trial-by-trial analyses may be able to better detect sparse prediction error signaling in expected reward processing regions.
Authors: Soyoung Q Park; Thorsten Kahnt; Anne Beck; Michael X Cohen; Raymond J Dolan; Jana Wrase; Andreas Heinz Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2010-06-02 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Francesca M Filbey; Lara Ray; Andrew Smolen; Eric D Claus; Amy Audette; Kent E Hutchison Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Karmen K Yoder; Evan D Morris; Cristian C Constantinescu; Tee-Ean Cheng; Marc D Normandin; Sean J O'Connor; David A Kareken Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2008-10-31 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Erica N Grodin; Lara A Ray; James MacKillop; Aaron C Lim; Mitchell P Karno Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-01-20 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Maria Paraskevopoulou; Daan van Rooij; Albert Batalla; Roselyne Chauvin; Maartje Luijten; Aart H Schene; Jan K Buitelaar; Arnt F A Schellekens Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Martine M Groefsema; Rutger C M E Engels; Valerie Voon; Arnt F A Schellekens; Maartje Luijten; Guillaume Sescousse Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 4.280