Behavioral response bias and event‐related brain potentials implicate elevated incentive salience attribution to alcohol cues in emerging adults with lower sensitivity to alcohol. (11th November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cofresí, Roberto U.; Kohen, Casey B.; Motschman, Courtney A.; Wiers, Reinout W.; Piasecki, Thomas M.; Bartholow, Bruce D.
• Is Part Of: Addiction. Volume 117:Number 4(2022)
• Page Start: 892
• Page End: 904
• Publication Date: 2021-11-11
• Subjects: Alcohol sensitivity -- approach‐bias -- conflict‐monitoring -- cue‐reactivity -- event‐related potentials -- incentive salience -- sign‐tracking.; Alcoholism -- Periodicals; Drug addiction -- Periodicals; 616.86
• DOI: 10.1111/add.15728
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0965-2140

Abstract

Abstract: 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.