Alison C Legrand1, Matthew Price2. 1. Department of Psychological Science, Room 248, University of Vermont, 2 Colchester Ave, Burlington, VT 05405, United States of America. Electronic address: Alison.Legrand@uvm.edu. 2. Department of Psychological Science, Room 248, University of Vermont, 2 Colchester Ave, Burlington, VT 05405, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Substance use disorder (SUD) is associated with impaired response inhibition. Given the deficits in emotion regulation associated with SUD, it is unclear if this impairment is exacerbated by emotionally valenced stimuli. Co-occurring conditions may further exacerbate these impairments as many co-occurring conditions further impact emotion regulation. It was hypothesized that negative stimuli may further impact response inhibition for this population. METHODS: The current study used the stop-signal task to examine response inhibition to negative, neutral and positive stimuli in a sample of those with a history of SUD and co-occurring depression and anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: Response inhibition was poorer for negative stimuli relative to neutral stimuli. There was no difference between negative and positive stimuli. Depression severity moderated the difference between response inhibition for negative and neutral stimuli. At elevated depression, response inhibition was worse and there was no difference across emotional stimuli. At low depression, there was a significant difference between negative and neutral stimuli. This effect was not found for anxiety symptoms. LIMITATIONS: Study participants presented with polysubstance use of varying duration and amount. It is unclear whether findings are attributed to specific substances, or substance use broadly. Additionally, happy, angry, and calm facial emotions were used to represent positive, negative, and neutral valences respectively. It is unclear whether these findings are generalizable to other emotional expressions. CONCLUSION: Results suggested that emotionally valenced stimuli affected response inhibition among those with low symptom severity. At elevated symptom severity, response inhibition to all stimuli were impaired.
BACKGROUND:Substance use disorder (SUD) is associated with impaired response inhibition. Given the deficits in emotion regulation associated with SUD, it is unclear if this impairment is exacerbated by emotionally valenced stimuli. Co-occurring conditions may further exacerbate these impairments as many co-occurring conditions further impact emotion regulation. It was hypothesized that negative stimuli may further impact response inhibition for this population. METHODS: The current study used the stop-signal task to examine response inhibition to negative, neutral and positive stimuli in a sample of those with a history of SUD and co-occurring depression and anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: Response inhibition was poorer for negative stimuli relative to neutral stimuli. There was no difference between negative and positive stimuli. Depression severity moderated the difference between response inhibition for negative and neutral stimuli. At elevated depression, response inhibition was worse and there was no difference across emotional stimuli. At low depression, there was a significant difference between negative and neutral stimuli. This effect was not found for anxiety symptoms. LIMITATIONS: Study participants presented with polysubstance use of varying duration and amount. It is unclear whether findings are attributed to specific substances, or substance use broadly. Additionally, happy, angry, and calm facial emotions were used to represent positive, negative, and neutral valences respectively. It is unclear whether these findings are generalizable to other emotional expressions. CONCLUSION: Results suggested that emotionally valenced stimuli affected response inhibition among those with low symptom severity. At elevated symptom severity, response inhibition to all stimuli were impaired.
Authors: Harvey A Whiteford; Louisa Degenhardt; Jürgen Rehm; Amanda J Baxter; Alize J Ferrari; Holly E Erskine; Fiona J Charlson; Rosana E Norman; Abraham D Flaxman; Nicole Johns; Roy Burstein; Christopher J L Murray; Theo Vos Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sudie E Back; Daniel F Gros; Matthew Price; Steve LaRowe; Julianne Flanagan; Kathleen T Brady; Charles Davis; Maryanne Jaconis; Jenna L McCauley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Helen V Laitano; Amanda Ely; Anne O Sordi; Felipe B Schuch; Flavio Pechansky; Thiago Hartmann; Juliana B Hilgert; Eliana M Wendland; Lisia Von Dimen; Juliana N Scherer; Alessandra Mendes Calixto; Joana C M Narvaez; Felipe Ornell; Félix H P Kessler Journal: Braz J Psychiatry Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.697