4.6 Article

Neurophysiological markers of cue reactivity and inhibition subtend a three-month period of complete alcohol abstinence

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 131, 期 2, 页码 555-565

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2019.10.020

关键词

Alcoholism; Abstinence; Event-related potentials; Dual process model; Cue reactivity; Inhibition

资金

  1. Belgian Fund for Scientific Research (F.N.R.S., Belgium)
  2. Brugmann Foundation (CHU Brugmann, Brussels, Belgium)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Finding new tools for conventional management of alcohol disorders is a challenge for psychiatrists. Brain indications related to cognitive functioning could represent such an add-on tool. Methods: Forty alcohol-dependent inpatients undertook two cognitive event-related potential (ERP) tasks at the beginning and at the end of a 4-week detoxification program. These comprised a visual oddball task investigating cue reactivity and a Go/No-go task tagging inhibition using oddball P3d and No-go P3d ERP components. Three months after discharge, the patient group (N = 40) was split into two subgroups: patients who remained abstinent during this post-treatment period (90 days; n = 15), and patients who relapsed (mean time: 28.5 +/- 26.2 days; n = 25). Pattern changes of both ERP markers (oddball P3d and No-go P3d) during the detoxification were compared to differentiate these populations. Results: Abstinent patients exhibited similar P3d responses devoted to alcohol cues in Sessions 1 and 2, but an increased No-go P3d devoted to No-go trials in alcohol-related contexts in Session 2 compared to Session 1. Conclusions: Specific cue-reactivity and inhibitory neurophysiological markers subtend a further three-months of complete abstinence. Significance: Monitoring these ERP changes during detoxification may provide important clues regarding patients' future abstinence vs. relapse. (C) 2019 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据