Impact of polysubstance use on social and non-affective cognitive performance among treatment-seeking individuals with alcohol use disorders. (July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lewis, Ben; Garcia, Christian C.; Bohan, Riley; Nixon, Sara Jo
• Is Part Of: Addictive behaviors. Volume 106(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-07
• Subjects: Alcohol use disorder -- Polysubstance use -- Emotion processing -- Social cognition -- Face processing; Substance abuse -- Periodicals; Alcoholism -- Periodicals; Drug addiction -- Periodicals; Nicotine addiction -- Periodicals; Smoking -- Periodicals; Gambling -- Psychological aspects -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 362.29
• DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106359
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0306-4603

Abstract

Highlights: Emotion processing was examined among individuals with alcohol use disorders. Polysubstance users evinced disadvantaged performance relative to other groups. Polysubstance users may be particularly vulnerable to deficits in decoding emotionality. Polysubstance use must be considered in analyses of AUD-associated cognitive deficits. Abstract: Background: Individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) display deficits across a range of cognitive processes. Decrements in social cognition may be particularly important for interpersonal functioning and post-treatment adaptation. Although social cognitive deficits are associated with chronic use of numerous substances, the role of polysubstance use in AUD-associated deficits remains largely unaddressed. Methods: Community volunteers (n = 49; 22 men) and inpatient treatment-seekers with AUD were administered neurocognitive tasks indexing emotion processing and non-affective cognitive functioning. Tasks included an emotion discrimination task, a working memory task with affective stimuli, a general face processing (control) task, two measures of executive function, and two measures of visual spatial function. AUD subgroups included individuals with no recent (6-month) polysubstance use (AUD-Only; n = 22; 15 men), and those with at least weekly use (Poly-SU; n = 22; 18 men). Results: Poly-SU individuals evinced disadvantaged performance relative to other groups on the emotion discrimination task [ p s ≤ 0.001], affective working memory task [ p s ≤ 0.050], and two executive function measures [ p s ≤ 0.051]. No differences were observed for visual spatial functioning [ p s ≥ 0.498] or general face processing [ p s ≥ 0.190]. No performance differences between AUD-Only and community volunteers were noted. Conclusions: Results extend the emerging literature exploring emotion processing in AUD and add to the established literature regarding cognitive deficits in this population. The data suggest that among individuals with AUD, those with polysubstance use may be particularly vulnerable to deficits in decoding emotional face content. The current work highlights the need to incorporate more nuanced and careful considerations of polysubstance use in the design and analysis for future investigations of alcohol-associated deficits in emotion processing.