Andy C Dean1,2, Erika L Nurmi1, Scott J Moeller3, Nader Amir4, Michelle Rozenman1, Dara G Ghahremani1, Maritza Johnson1, Robert Berberyan1, Gerhard Hellemann1, Ziwei Zhang1, Edythe D London5,6,7. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA. 2. Brain Research Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 92120, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA. elondon@mednet.ucla.edu. 6. Brain Research Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA. elondon@mednet.ucla.edu. 7. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA. elondon@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Attentional bias toward drug-related stimuli is a feature of drug addiction that is linked to craving and drug-seeking behavior. OBJECTIVES/ METHOD: An attentional bias modification (ABM) program was tested in 42 methamphetamine-dependent clients (DSM-IV criteria) receiving residential treatment for their drug use. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups (N = 21 each), receiving 12 sessions of either computerized ABM training (designed to train attention away from methamphetamine stimuli 100% of the time) or an attentional control condition (designed to train attention away from methamphetamine stimuli 50% of the time). Outcome measures included attentional bias to methamphetamine-related stimuli on a probe detection task, self-reported craving, and preferences to view methamphetamine-related images on a Simulated Drug Choice Task. A subset of participants (N = 17) also underwent fMRI in a cue-induced craving paradigm. RESULTS: Poor split-half reliability was observed for the probe detection task. Using this task, attentional bias toward methamphetamine-related stimuli was greater after training than at baseline, irrespective of group (p = 0.037). Spontaneous and cue-induced methamphetamine craving diminished with time (ps < 0.01), but ABM training did not influence these effects (group by time interactions, ps > 0.05). ABM training did not influence selection of methamphetamine-related pictures in the Simulated Drug Choice task (p > 0.05). In the fMRI assessment, cue-induced activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex was reduced over time, without an effect of ABM training. CONCLUSIONS: ABM training did not improve several clinically relevant variables in treatment-seeking methamphetamine users. Additional research is needed to improve the measurement of attentional bias.
RATIONALE: Attentional bias toward drug-related stimuli is a feature of drug addiction that is linked to craving and drug-seeking behavior. OBJECTIVES/ METHOD: An attentional bias modification (ABM) program was tested in 42 methamphetamine-dependent clients (DSM-IV criteria) receiving residential treatment for their drug use. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups (N = 21 each), receiving 12 sessions of either computerized ABM training (designed to train attention away from methamphetamine stimuli 100% of the time) or an attentional control condition (designed to train attention away from methamphetamine stimuli 50% of the time). Outcome measures included attentional bias to methamphetamine-related stimuli on a probe detection task, self-reported craving, and preferences to view methamphetamine-related images on a Simulated Drug Choice Task. A subset of participants (N = 17) also underwent fMRI in a cue-induced craving paradigm. RESULTS: Poor split-half reliability was observed for the probe detection task. Using this task, attentional bias toward methamphetamine-related stimuli was greater after training than at baseline, irrespective of group (p = 0.037). Spontaneous and cue-induced methamphetamine craving diminished with time (ps < 0.01), but ABM training did not influence these effects (group by time interactions, ps > 0.05). ABM training did not influence selection of methamphetamine-related pictures in the Simulated Drug Choice task (p > 0.05). In the fMRI assessment, cue-induced activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex was reduced over time, without an effect of ABM training. CONCLUSIONS: ABM training did not improve several clinically relevant variables in treatment-seeking methamphetamine users. Additional research is needed to improve the measurement of attentional bias.
Authors: Bradley D Sussner; David A Smelson; Stephanie Rodrigues; Anna Kline; Miklos Losonczy; Douglas Ziedonis Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2005-12-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Johannes Petzold; Andy C Dean; Jean-Baptiste Pochon; Dara G Ghahremani; Richard De La Garza; Edythe D London Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2022-09 Impact factor: 4.093
Authors: Mehran Zare-Bidoky; Arshiya Sangchooli; Hamed Ekhtiari; Amy C Janes; Marc J Kaufman; Jason A Oliver; James J Prisciandaro; Torsten Wüstenberg; Raymond F Anton; Patrick Bach; Alex Baldacchino; Anne Beck; James M Bjork; Judson Brewer; Anna Rose Childress; Eric D Claus; Kelly E Courtney; Mohsen Ebrahimi; Francesca M Filbey; Dara G Ghahremani; Peyman Ghobadi Azbari; Rita Z Goldstein; Anna E Goudriaan; Erica N Grodin; J Paul Hamilton; Colleen A Hanlon; Peyman Hassani-Abharian; Andreas Heinz; Jane E Joseph; Falk Kiefer; Arash Khojasteh Zonoozi; Hedy Kober; Rayus Kuplicki; Qiang Li; Edythe D London; Joseph McClernon; Hamid R Noori; Max M Owens; Martin P Paulus; Irene Perini; Marc Potenza; Stéphane Potvin; Lara Ray; Joseph P Schacht; Dongju Seo; Rajita Sinha; Michael N Smolka; Rainer Spanagel; Vaughn R Steele; Elliot A Stein; Sabine Steins-Loeber; Susan F Tapert; Antonio Verdejo-Garcia; Sabine Vollstädt-Klein; Reagan R Wetherill; Stephen J Wilson; Katie Witkiewitz; Kai Yuan; Xiaochu Zhang; Anna Zilverstand Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 17.021
Authors: Antonio Verdejo-Garcia; Valentina Lorenzetti; Victoria Manning; Hugh Piercy; Raimondo Bruno; Rob Hester; David Pennington; Serenella Tolomeo; Shalini Arunogiri; Marsha E Bates; Henrietta Bowden-Jones; Salvatore Campanella; Stacey B Daughters; Christos Kouimtsidis; Dan I Lubman; Dieter J Meyerhoff; Annaketurah Ralph; Tara Rezapour; Hosna Tavakoli; Mehran Zare-Bidoky; Anna Zilverstand; Douglas Steele; Scott J Moeller; Martin Paulus; Alex Baldacchino; Hamed Ekhtiari Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Lee Seng Esmond Seow; Wei Jie Ong; Aditi Hombali; P V AshaRani; Mythily Subramaniam Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Melvyn Zhang; Jiangbo Ying; Syidda B Amron; Zaakira Mahreen; Guo Song; Daniel Ss Fung; Helen E Smith Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 4.773