AIMS: This study used a behavioral approach-avoidance task including images of alcoholic beverages to test whether low sensitivity to alcohol (LS) is a phenotypical marker of a dispositional propensity to attribute bottom-up incentive value to naturally conditioned alcohol cues. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Experimental study with a measured individual difference variable at a university psychology laboratory in Missouri, MO, USA. Participants were 178 emerging adults (aged 18-20 years) varying in self-reported sensitivity to alcohol's acute effects. MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed the alcohol approach-avoidance task while behavior (response time; RT) and the electroencephalogram (EEG) were recorded. Stimulus-locked event-related potentials (ERPs) provided indices of integrated (top-down and bottom-up) stimulus incentive value (P3 amplitude) and conflict between top-down task demands and bottom-up response propensities (N450 amplitude). FINDINGS: Linear mixed models showed faster RT for 'alcohol-approach' relative to 'alcohol-avoid' trials for lower-sensitivity (LS) [meanD ± standard errorD (MD ± SED ) = 29.51 ± 9.74 ms, t(328) = 3.03, P = 0.003] but not higher-sensitivity (HS) individuals (MD ± SED = 2.27 ± 9.33 ms, t(328) = 0.243, P = 0.808). There was enhanced N450 amplitude (response conflict) for alcohol-avoid relative to alcohol-approach trials for LS participants (MD ± SED = 0.811 ± 0.198 μV, Z = 4.108, P < 0.001) and enhanced N450 amplitude for alcohol-approach relative to alcohol-avoid for HS participants (MD ± SED = 0.419 ± 0.188 μV, Z = 2.235, P = 0.025). There was also enhanced P3 amplitude for alcohol-approach relative to alcohol-avoid for LS (MD ± SED = 0.825 ± 0.204 μV, Z = 4.045, P < 0.001) but not HS (MD ± SED = 0.013 ± 0.194 μV, Z = 0.068, P = 0.946). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from a human laboratory study appear to support the notion that low sensitivity to alcohol indexes a propensity to attribute bottom-up incentive value to naturally conditioned alcohol cues.
AIMS: This study used a behavioral approach-avoidance task including images of alcoholic beverages to test whether low sensitivity to alcohol (LS) is a phenotypical marker of a dispositional propensity to attribute bottom-up incentive value to naturally conditioned alcohol cues. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Experimental study with a measured individual difference variable at a university psychology laboratory in Missouri, MO, USA. Participants were 178 emerging adults (aged 18-20 years) varying in self-reported sensitivity to alcohol's acute effects. MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed the alcohol approach-avoidance task while behavior (response time; RT) and the electroencephalogram (EEG) were recorded. Stimulus-locked event-related potentials (ERPs) provided indices of integrated (top-down and bottom-up) stimulus incentive value (P3 amplitude) and conflict between top-down task demands and bottom-up response propensities (N450 amplitude). FINDINGS: Linear mixed models showed faster RT for 'alcohol-approach' relative to 'alcohol-avoid' trials for lower-sensitivity (LS) [meanD ± standard errorD (MD ± SED ) = 29.51 ± 9.74 ms, t(328) = 3.03, P = 0.003] but not higher-sensitivity (HS) individuals (MD ± SED = 2.27 ± 9.33 ms, t(328) = 0.243, P = 0.808). There was enhanced N450 amplitude (response conflict) for alcohol-avoid relative to alcohol-approach trials for LS participants (MD ± SED = 0.811 ± 0.198 μV, Z = 4.108, P < 0.001) and enhanced N450 amplitude for alcohol-approach relative to alcohol-avoid for HS participants (MD ± SED = 0.419 ± 0.188 μV, Z = 2.235, P = 0.025). There was also enhanced P3 amplitude for alcohol-approach relative to alcohol-avoid for LS (MD ± SED = 0.825 ± 0.204 μV, Z = 4.045, P < 0.001) but not HS (MD ± SED = 0.013 ± 0.194 μV, Z = 0.068, P = 0.946). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from a human laboratory study appear to support the notion that low sensitivity to alcohol indexes a propensity to attribute bottom-up incentive value to naturally conditioned alcohol cues.
Authors: Susan Bamford; Samantha J Broyd; Nicholas Benikos; Robert Ward; Jan R Wiersema; Edmund Sonuga-Barke Journal: Biol Psychol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 3.251
Authors: Hannah I Volpert-Esmond; Edgar C Merkle; Meredith P Levsen; Tiffany A Ito; Bruce D Bartholow Journal: Psychophysiology Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Matthias Grieder; Leila M Soravia; Raphaela M Tschuemperlin; Hallie M Batschelet; Andrea Federspiel; Simon Schwab; Yosuke Morishima; Franz Moggi; Maria Stein Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Casey B Kohen; Roberto U Cofresí; Bruce D Bartholow; Thomas M Piasecki Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 3.492