4.4 Article

Behavioral components of impulsivity predict alcohol consumption in adults with ADHD and healthy controls

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 113, 期 2-3, 页码 139-146

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.07.027

关键词

Behavioral impulsivity; Alcohol consumption; ADHD

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R21 DA021027, DA005312]
  2. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [R01 AA012895, R01 AA012874, F31 AA018584]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The degree to which distinct behavioral components of impulsivity predict alcohol consumption is as yet not well-understood. Further, the possibility that this relation might be more pronounced in groups characterized by heightened impulsivity (i.e., individuals with ADHD) has not been tested. Methods: The current study examined the degree to which three specific behavioral components of impulsivity (i.e., poor response inhibition, poor attentional inhibition, and increased risk-taking) were associated with quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption in a group of young adult social drinkers with ADHD (n = 33) and in a comparison control group (n = 21). Participants performed the delayed ocular return task (attentional inhibition), the cued go/no-go task (behavioral inhibition), and the balloon analogue risk task (risk-taking). Results: Both poor behavioral inhibition and greater risk-taking were related to greater quantity of consumption in the entire sample, whereas poor attentional inhibition was related to greater quantity specifically among those with ADHD. By contrast, only risk-taking was associated with frequency of consumption, and this was found specifically in the control group. Conclusions: These findings provide important information regarding the potential role of distinct behavioral components of impulsivity in drinking behavior, and highlight unique relevance of attentional impairments to drinking behavior in those with ADHD. (C) 2010 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