Relating distractor suppression to problematic drinking behavior

•Cognitive control and attentional control share similar goal-driven attributes.•Heavy drinkers and controls performed similarly on go/no-go and Stroop tasks.•Suppression of high-frequency distractors was blunted in heavy drinkers.•Drinkers had difficulty leveraging statistical regularities to facil...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Addictive behaviors 2024-12, Vol.159, p.108131, Article 108131
Hauptverfasser: Youn, Sojung, Anderson, Brian A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Cognitive control and attentional control share similar goal-driven attributes.•Heavy drinkers and controls performed similarly on go/no-go and Stroop tasks.•Suppression of high-frequency distractors was blunted in heavy drinkers.•Drinkers had difficulty leveraging statistical regularities to facilitate ignoring.•Distractor suppression is distinct from the suppression of prepotent responses. Impaired cognitive control has been linked to weakened self-regulatory processes underlying compulsive substance intake. Previous research has provided evidence for impaired task performance in substance-abusing groups during Stroop and Go/No-Go tasks. Mechanisms of distractor suppression in visual search might also involve overlapping regulatory components that support goal-directed behavior by resolving the attentional competition between distractors and the target of search. However, the efficiency of learning-dependent distractor suppression has not been examined in the context of drug abuse and a direct comparison between cognitive control and distractor suppression is lacking. A total of 84 participants were assigned either to the heavy drinking group (ALC, n = 42) or the control group (CTL, n = 42) based on self-reported substance use. Participants completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS). After that, participants completed a computerized version of the Stroop task, Go/No-go task, and a visual search task measuring learning-dependent distractor suppression. The Stroop effect and the frequency of no-go errors did not differ between groups. However, learned distractor suppression was significantly blunted in the ALC group compared to the control group. Across participants, performance on the Stroop and Go/No-go task were correlated, while the magnitude of distractor suppression was related to neither. Our findings support a divergence of mechanistic processes underlying cognitive control and attentional control, and demonstrate impaired learning-dependent distractor suppression in heavy drinkers relative to a control group. Impaired distractor suppression offers new insight into why drug cues can be difficult to ignore.
ISSN:0306-4603
1873-6327
1873-6327
DOI:10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.108131