Xi He1,2, Di Zhao3, Mingming Zhang1,2, Yexi Leng1,2, Weiqi He1,2. 1. Research Center of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience, Liaoning Province, Dalian 116029, China. 3. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200030, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Inhibitory deficits contribute to impulsive drug-seeking behavior in individuals with methamphetamine use disorder (MUD). Whether abstinent individuals with MUD exhibit greater cognitive disinhibition when the suppressed response is associated with drug-related images is not fully known. This study evaluated the potency of drug-associated cue exposure in this process. METHOD: We recruited 54 abstinent men with MUD and 46 healthy control (HC) subjects to complete a novel go/no-go task in which drug-associated cues were presented in 240 trials. RESULTS: Upon exposure to drug-associated cues, the numbers of commission errors increased significantly only in the abstinent MUD group (p < .001), and the abstinent MUD group produced higher levels of commission errors than the HC group (p = .009). When drug-associated cues were not available (in scrambled trials), the abstinent MUD group produced similar levels of commission errors when compared with the HC group (p = .336). The reaction times in drug cue exposure trials were longer than in scrambled trials across groups (p < .001), whereas the abstinent MUD group produced shorter reaction times than HCs, regardless of trial conditions (p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: The novel go/no-go task is a useful method for detecting impulsivity in abstinent individuals with MUD. Cue exposure triggers impairment of inhibitory control in individuals with MUD at abstinence.
OBJECTIVE: Inhibitory deficits contribute to impulsive drug-seeking behavior in individuals with methamphetamine use disorder (MUD). Whether abstinent individuals with MUD exhibit greater cognitive disinhibition when the suppressed response is associated with drug-related images is not fully known. This study evaluated the potency of drug-associated cue exposure in this process. METHOD: We recruited 54 abstinent men with MUD and 46 healthy control (HC) subjects to complete a novel go/no-go task in which drug-associated cues were presented in 240 trials. RESULTS: Upon exposure to drug-associated cues, the numbers of commission errors increased significantly only in the abstinent MUD group (p < .001), and the abstinent MUD group produced higher levels of commission errors than the HC group (p = .009). When drug-associated cues were not available (in scrambled trials), the abstinent MUD group produced similar levels of commission errors when compared with the HC group (p = .336). The reaction times in drug cue exposure trials were longer than in scrambled trials across groups (p < .001), whereas the abstinent MUD group produced shorter reaction times than HCs, regardless of trial conditions (p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: The novel go/no-go task is a useful method for detecting impulsivity in abstinent individuals with MUD. Cue exposure triggers impairment of inhibitory control in individuals with MUD at abstinence.