4.4 Article

Strategic self-regulation, decision-making and emotion processing in poly-substance abusers in their first year of abstinence

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 86, 期 2-3, 页码 139-146

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.05.024

关键词

addictive behavior; emotion; decision-making; neuropsychological tests; orbitofrontal cortex; poly-substance abuse; self-regulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individuals with substance dependence (ISD) frequently show signs of impaired emotion processing, self-regulation and decision-making, even after prolonged abstinence from drug use and partial recovery of other neuropsycholo0cal functions. These impairments have been associated with alterations in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) in lesion and imaging studies. The aim of this study was to examine the performance of a group of ISD, who had been abstinent for at least 4 months, on a series of emotional perception, self-regulation and decision-making tests sensitive to OFC dysfunction. Thirty ISD (poly-substance abusers in their first year of abstinence) and 35 healthy comparison (HQ participants were in the study. We administered the Ekman Faces Test (EFT), the Revised Strategy Application Test (R-SAT) and the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) to both ISD and HC. Results showed that the ISD presented significant deficits in the recognition of facial emotional expressions and decision-making as measured by the EFT and the IGT. The ISD also showed poorer strategy awareness, impaired self-regulation and higher impulsivity on the R-SAT. We found significant correlations between the different measures linked to OFC functioning. We did not find significant correlations between length of abstinence and performance on these tests. These results suggest that the evaluation of emotion, self-regulation and decision-making contributes greatly to the characterization of the persistent deficits exhibited by ISD during prolonged abstinence. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.4
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