Lauren A Hoffman1, Ben Lewis2,3, Sara Jo Nixon2,3. 1. Recovery Research Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 3. Center for Addiction Research & Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing literature suggests deficient emotional facial expression (EFE) processing among recently abstinent individuals with alcohol use disorders (AUDs). Further investigation is needed to clarify valence-related discrepancies and elucidate neural and psychosocial correlates. We examined neurobehavioral indices of EFE processing and interpersonal problems in treatment seekers with AUDs and healthy community controls (CCs). METHODS: Thirty-four individuals with AUDs and 39 CCs completed an emotion judgment task (EJT), requiring discrimination between happy, angry, and sad EFEs. A second task requiring discrimination of male and female faces with neutral expressions served as the control task (i.e., sex judgment task, SJT). Neurophysiological (i.e., N170 and P3) and behavioral measures were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM). Interpersonal problems were assessed with the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-64 (IIP-64). The relationship of IIP-64 and EJT performance was investigated via within-group correlations. RESULTS: Analysis of the SJT revealed no group differences in behavioral measures, N170 amplitude, or P3 latency. P3 amplitudes, however, were significantly lower in the AUD group. For the EJT, initial observations of group differences in P3 amplitude were accounted for by differences in the control task. Behavioral analyses indicated that the AUD group was significantly less accurate than the CC group. Hypothesis-driven analyses using GLMM-estimated group differences indicated that anger processing was affected to a greater degree than were other emotions. Significant EJT/IIP-64 correlations were observed for anger processing within the AUD group and were confined to IIP-64 subscales with relatively high ratings on the affiliation dimension. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide partial support for an emotion-specific processing deficit in persons with AUDs. Anger processing was more robustly affected than other emotions and was associated with interpersonal problems characterized by being overly needy, nonassertive, and overly accommodating. Results extend prior reports and reinforce the need for comprehensive study of emotion processing and its real-world implications.
BACKGROUND: A growing literature suggests deficient emotional facial expression (EFE) processing among recently abstinent individuals with alcohol use disorders (AUDs). Further investigation is needed to clarify valence-related discrepancies and elucidate neural and psychosocial correlates. We examined neurobehavioral indices of EFE processing and interpersonal problems in treatment seekers with AUDs and healthy community controls (CCs). METHODS: Thirty-four individuals with AUDs and 39 CCs completed an emotion judgment task (EJT), requiring discrimination between happy, angry, and sad EFEs. A second task requiring discrimination of male and female faces with neutral expressions served as the control task (i.e., sex judgment task, SJT). Neurophysiological (i.e., N170 and P3) and behavioral measures were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM). Interpersonal problems were assessed with the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-64 (IIP-64). The relationship of IIP-64 and EJT performance was investigated via within-group correlations. RESULTS: Analysis of the SJT revealed no group differences in behavioral measures, N170 amplitude, or P3 latency. P3 amplitudes, however, were significantly lower in the AUD group. For the EJT, initial observations of group differences in P3 amplitude were accounted for by differences in the control task. Behavioral analyses indicated that the AUD group was significantly less accurate than the CC group. Hypothesis-driven analyses using GLMM-estimated group differences indicated that anger processing was affected to a greater degree than were other emotions. Significant EJT/IIP-64 correlations were observed for anger processing within the AUD group and were confined to IIP-64 subscales with relatively high ratings on the affiliation dimension. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide partial support for an emotion-specific processing deficit in persons with AUDs. Anger processing was more robustly affected than other emotions and was associated with interpersonal problems characterized by being overly needy, nonassertive, and overly accommodating. Results extend prior reports and reinforce the need for comprehensive study of emotion processing and its real-world implications.
Authors: Pierre Maurage; Salvatore Campanella; Pierre Philippot; Ian Charest; Sophie Martin; Philippe de Timary Journal: Alcohol Alcohol Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 2.826
Authors: P Maurage; S Campanella; P Philippot; P de Timary; E Constant; S Gauthier; M-L Miccichè; C Kornreich; C Hanak; X Noel; P Verbanck Journal: Neurophysiol Clin Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Ben Lewis; Christian C Garcia; Julianne L Price; Susanne Schweizer; Sara Jo Nixon Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Cindy L Ehlers; Derek N Wills; Katherine J Karriker-Jaffe; David A Gilder; Evelyn Phillips; Rebecca A Bernert Journal: Behav Sci (Basel) Date: 2020-10-07
Authors: Marlene Oscar-Berman; Susan Mosher Ruiz; Ksenija Marinkovic; Mary M Valmas; Gordon J Harris; Kayle S Sawyer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 3.240