Slow associative learning in alcohol dependence and the Alcohol Cue Exposure Treatment Paradox
Slow associative learning in alcohol dependence and the Alcohol Cue Exposure Treatment Paradox
Aims: To examine two explanations for the observation that cue–exposure treatment has not been clearly effective in the treatment of alcohol dependence: do alcohol-dependent individuals have either (1) slower extinction and/or (2) greater contextual specificity of extinction than non-dependent individuals?. Design: In two exploratory laboratory experiments we used mixed factorial designs with two-group between-subjects factors and within-subjects factors corresponding to performance in different parts of a computer-based learning task. Setting: University of Southampton psychology research laboratories and two addiction treatment services in the city of Southampton, UK. Participants: Experiment 1: 74 (54 female) undergraduates from the University of Southampton (age mean = 20.4 years). Experiment 2: 102 (40 female) participants from the University of Southampton, the local community, and from two Southampton alcohol treatment services (age mean = 41.3 years). Measurements: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, a 1-week time-line follow-back alcohol consumption questionnaire, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (11th edn), and a computerized learning task. Experiment 2 additionally used the 44-item Big Five Inventory, a drug use history checklist, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Findings: Experiment 1: light and heavy drinkers did not differ significantly in extinction [extinction block × drinking status interaction, P = 0.761, (Formula presented.), 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0,0.028)] or on contextual control of extinction [recovery block × drinking status interaction, P = 0.514, (Formula presented.), 95% CI =(0, 0.084)]. Experiment 2: slower extinction in abstinent alcohol-dependent participants compared with light drinkers [extinction block × drinking status interaction, P = 0.023, (Formula presented.), 95% CI = 0, 0.069)] but no significant difference on contextual control of extinction [recovery block × drinking status interaction, P = 0.069, (Formula presented.), 95% CI = (0, 0.125)]. Conclusion: Abstinent alcohol-dependent people may have slower extinction learning for alcohol-related cues than non-dependent light drinkers.
ABC recovery, alcohol dependence, associative learning, cue exposure, extinction
1-10
Buckfield, Carl
a8eb8ffe-7c02-43c5-a0f1-a737954ea778
Sinclair, Julia
be3e54d5-c6da-4950-b0ba-3cb8cdcab13c
Glautier, Steven
964468b2-3ad7-40cc-b4be-e35c7dee518f
Buckfield, Carl
a8eb8ffe-7c02-43c5-a0f1-a737954ea778
Sinclair, Julia
be3e54d5-c6da-4950-b0ba-3cb8cdcab13c
Glautier, Steven
964468b2-3ad7-40cc-b4be-e35c7dee518f
Buckfield, Carl, Sinclair, Julia and Glautier, Steven
(2020)
Slow associative learning in alcohol dependence and the Alcohol Cue Exposure Treatment Paradox.
Addiction, 0, .
(doi:10.1111/add.15210).
Abstract
Aims: To examine two explanations for the observation that cue–exposure treatment has not been clearly effective in the treatment of alcohol dependence: do alcohol-dependent individuals have either (1) slower extinction and/or (2) greater contextual specificity of extinction than non-dependent individuals?. Design: In two exploratory laboratory experiments we used mixed factorial designs with two-group between-subjects factors and within-subjects factors corresponding to performance in different parts of a computer-based learning task. Setting: University of Southampton psychology research laboratories and two addiction treatment services in the city of Southampton, UK. Participants: Experiment 1: 74 (54 female) undergraduates from the University of Southampton (age mean = 20.4 years). Experiment 2: 102 (40 female) participants from the University of Southampton, the local community, and from two Southampton alcohol treatment services (age mean = 41.3 years). Measurements: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, a 1-week time-line follow-back alcohol consumption questionnaire, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (11th edn), and a computerized learning task. Experiment 2 additionally used the 44-item Big Five Inventory, a drug use history checklist, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Findings: Experiment 1: light and heavy drinkers did not differ significantly in extinction [extinction block × drinking status interaction, P = 0.761, (Formula presented.), 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0,0.028)] or on contextual control of extinction [recovery block × drinking status interaction, P = 0.514, (Formula presented.), 95% CI =(0, 0.084)]. Experiment 2: slower extinction in abstinent alcohol-dependent participants compared with light drinkers [extinction block × drinking status interaction, P = 0.023, (Formula presented.), 95% CI = 0, 0.069)] but no significant difference on contextual control of extinction [recovery block × drinking status interaction, P = 0.069, (Formula presented.), 95% CI = (0, 0.125)]. Conclusion: Abstinent alcohol-dependent people may have slower extinction learning for alcohol-related cues than non-dependent light drinkers.
Text
Buckfield Sinclair Glautier Accepted
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
add.15210
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 22 July 2020
e-pub ahead of print date: 28 July 2020
Additional Information:
Funding Information:
C.B. was supported by a Society for the Study of Addiction PhD studentship for this work.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction
Keywords:
ABC recovery, alcohol dependence, associative learning, cue exposure, extinction
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 442758
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/442758
ISSN: 0965-2140
PURE UUID: c0fbdbbb-aab5-4777-97d0-84ece67af55c
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 24 Jul 2020 16:46
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 05:46
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Carl Buckfield
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics