Hollis C Karoly1, Joseph P Schacht2, Joanna Jacobus3, Lindsay R Meredith4, Charles T Taylor3, Susan F Tapert3, Kevin M Gray2, Lindsay M Squeglia2. 1. University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Cognitive Science, Boulder, CO, USA. Electronic address: hollis.karoly@colorado.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Addiction Sciences Division, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) has garnered interest as a potential addiction treatment. CBM interventions such as Approach Avoidance Training (AAT) are designed to alter automatic tendencies to approach drugs or drug-related cues. In our previous work, the cannabis AAT (CAAT) reduced cannabis approach bias, which was related to reduced cannabis use, among 80 non-treatment-seeking cannabis-using youth (Jacobus et al., 2018). In this preliminary examination, a subsample of these youth underwent neuroimaging to explore CAAT's effect on cannabis cue-related neural activation. METHODS: Sub-study participants were 41 cannabis-using youth ages 17-21 (mean age = 18.83; 47.5% female). Participants completed a cannabis cue-reactivity task during a functional MRI scan pre- and post CAAT-training or CAAT-sham to examine CAAT-related neural changes. RESULTS: Thirty-seven youth completed all six CAAT (n = 19) or CAAT-sham (n = 18) training sessions and had usable neuroimaging data. The group*time interaction on cannabis approach bias reached trend-level significance (p = .055). Change in approach bias slopes from pre-to post-treatment was positive for CAAT-sham (increased approach bias) and negative for CAAT-training (change to avoidance bias), consistent with the larger study. No significant changes emerged for cannabis cue-induced activation following CAAT-training or CAAT-sham in whole brain or region of interest analyses. However, active CAAT-training was associated with small-to-medium decreases in amygdala (Cohen's dz = 0.36) and medial prefrontal cortex (Cohen's dz = 0.48) activation to cannabis cues. CONCLUSIONS: Despite reducing cannabis use in the larger sample, CAAT-training did not alter neural cannabis cue-reactivity in the sub-study compared to CAAT-sham. More research is needed to understand neural mechanisms underlying AAT-related changes in substance use.
BACKGROUND:Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) has garnered interest as a potential addiction treatment. CBM interventions such as Approach Avoidance Training (AAT) are designed to alter automatic tendencies to approach drugs or drug-related cues. In our previous work, the cannabis AAT (CAAT) reduced cannabis approach bias, which was related to reduced cannabis use, among 80 non-treatment-seeking cannabis-using youth (Jacobus et al., 2018). In this preliminary examination, a subsample of these youth underwent neuroimaging to explore CAAT's effect on cannabis cue-related neural activation. METHODS: Sub-study participants were 41 cannabis-using youth ages 17-21 (mean age = 18.83; 47.5% female). Participants completed a cannabis cue-reactivity task during a functional MRI scan pre- and post CAAT-training or CAAT-sham to examine CAAT-related neural changes. RESULTS: Thirty-seven youth completed all six CAAT (n = 19) or CAAT-sham (n = 18) training sessions and had usable neuroimaging data. The group*time interaction on cannabis approach bias reached trend-level significance (p = .055). Change in approach bias slopes from pre-to post-treatment was positive for CAAT-sham (increased approach bias) and negative for CAAT-training (change to avoidance bias), consistent with the larger study. No significant changes emerged for cannabis cue-induced activation following CAAT-training or CAAT-sham in whole brain or region of interest analyses. However, active CAAT-training was associated with small-to-medium decreases in amygdala (Cohen's dz = 0.36) and medial prefrontal cortex (Cohen's dz = 0.48) activation to cannabis cues. CONCLUSIONS: Despite reducing cannabis use in the larger sample, CAAT-training did not alter neural cannabis cue-reactivity in the sub-study compared to CAAT-sham. More research is needed to understand neural mechanisms underlying AAT-related changes in substance use.
Authors: Rahul S Desikan; Florent Ségonne; Bruce Fischl; Brian T Quinn; Bradford C Dickerson; Deborah Blacker; Randy L Buckner; Anders M Dale; R Paul Maguire; Bradley T Hyman; Marilyn S Albert; Ronald J Killiany Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Corinde E Wiers; Vera U Ludwig; Thomas E Gladwin; Soyoung Q Park; Andreas Heinz; Reinout W Wiers; Mike Rinck; Johannes Lindenmeyer; Henrik Walter; Felix Bermpohl Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Reinout W Wiers; Katrijn Houben; Javad S Fadardi; Paul van Beek; Mijke Rhemtulla; W Miles Cox Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Erika A Henry; Jesse T Kaye; Angela D Bryan; Kent E Hutchison; Tiffany A Ito Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Hollis C Karoly; Joseph P Schacht; Lindsay R Meredith; Joanna Jacobus; Susan F Tapert; Kevin M Gray; Lindsay M Squeglia Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Michelle L Davis; Mark B Powers; Pamela Handelsman; Johnna L Medina; Michael Zvolensky; Jasper A J Smits Journal: Eval Health Prof Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Marina Goldman; Regina P Szucs-Reed; Kanchana Jagannathan; Ronald N Ehrman; Ze Wang; Yin Li; Jesse J Suh; Kyle Kampman; Charles P O'Brien; Anna Rose Childress; Teresa R Franklin Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Laika D Aguinaldo; Lindsay M Squeglia; Kevin M Gray; Clarisa Coronado; Briana Lees; Rachel L Tomko; Joanna Jacobus Journal: Curr Addict Rep Date: 2019-11-15
Authors: Natasha E Wade; Rachel Baca; Kelly E Courtney; Connor J McCabe; M Alejandra Infante; Marilyn A Huestis; Joanna Jacobus Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 2.892