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 indiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Addiction Vol. 116; no. 4; pp. 759 - 769
Autores principales: Buckfield, Carl, Sinclair, Julia M. A., Glautier, Julia
Formato: pictorial research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Apr2021
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=149375735&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 149375735
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        09652140
        AIO
      jtl: Addiction
      issn: 09652140
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Apr2021
      vid: 116
      iid: 4
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        149375735
        149375735
        149375735
        10.1111/add.15210
        149375735
      ppf: 759
      ppct: 10
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: Slow associative learning in alcohol dependence and the alcohol cue exposure treatment paradox.
      aug:
        au:
          Buckfield, Carl
          Sinclair, Julia M. A.
          Glautier, Julia
        affil: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton SO171BJ,, UK
      sug:
        subj:
          Learning
          Alcoholism Therapy
          Cues
          Human
          Exploratory Research
          Computer-Assisted Instruction
          Colleges and Universities
          Psychology
          United Kingdom
          Students, Undergraduate
          Adult
          Male
          Female
          Communities
          Clinical Assessment Tools
          Questionnaires
          Scales
          Descriptive Statistics
          Confidence Intervals
          Recovery
          Conditioning (Psychology)
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Male
          Female
      ab: 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, ηp2=0.005, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0,0.028)] or on contextual control of extinction [recovery block × drinking status interaction, P = 0.514, ηp2=0.009, 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, ηp2=0.031, 95% CI = 0, 0.069)] but no significant difference on contextual control of extinction [recovery block × drinking status interaction, P = 0.069, ηp2=0.033, 95% CI = (0, 0.125)]. Conclusion: Abstinent alcohol‐dependent people may have slower extinction learning for alcohol‐related cues than non‐dependent light drinkers.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        pictorial
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N