» Articles » PMID: 24128148

Attentional Bias for Nondrug Reward is Magnified in Addiction

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2013 Oct 17
PMID 24128148
Citations 60
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Attentional biases for drug-related stimuli play a prominent role in addiction, predicting treatment outcomes. Attentional biases also develop for stimuli that have been paired with nondrug rewards in adults without a history of addiction, the magnitude of which is predicted by visual working-memory capacity and impulsiveness. We tested the hypothesis that addiction is associated with an increased attentional bias for nondrug (monetary) reward relative to that of healthy controls, and that this bias is related to working-memory impairments and increased impulsiveness. Seventeen patients receiving methadone-maintenance treatment for opioid dependence and 17 healthy controls participated. Impulsiveness was measured using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11; Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995), visual working-memory capacity was measured as the ability to recognize briefly presented color stimuli, and attentional bias was measured as the magnitude of response time slowing caused by irrelevant but previously reward-associated distractors in a visual-search task. The results showed that attention was biased toward the distractors across all participants, replicating previous findings. It is important to note, this bias was significantly greater in the patients than in the controls and was negatively correlated with visual working-memory capacity. Patients were also significantly more impulsive than controls as a group. Our findings demonstrate that patients in treatment for addiction experience greater difficulty ignoring stimuli associated with nondrug reward. This nonspecific reward-related bias could mediate the distracting quality of drug-related stimuli previously observed in addiction.

Citing Articles

Resting-state brain activation patterns and network topology distinguish human sign and goal trackers.

Schettino M, Mauti M, Parrillo C, Ceccarelli I, Giove F, Napolitano A Transl Psychiatry. 2024; 14(1):446.

PMID: 39438457 PMC: 11496639. DOI: 10.1038/s41398-024-03162-w.


From learned value to sustained bias: how reward conditioning changes attentional priority.

Meyer K, Hopfinger J, Vidrascu E, Boettiger C, Robinson D, Sheridan M Front Hum Neurosci. 2024; 18:1354142.

PMID: 38689827 PMC: 11059963. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1354142.


Trichotomy revisited: A monolithic theory of attentional control.

Anderson B Vision Res. 2024; 217:108366.

PMID: 38387262 PMC: 11523554. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2024.108366.


On the reliability of value-modulated attentional capture: An online replication and multiverse analysis.

Garre-Frutos F, Vadillo M, Gonzalez F, Lupianez J Behav Res Methods. 2024; 56(6):5986-6003.

PMID: 38195787 PMC: 11335866. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-023-02329-5.


Rewarding outcomes enhance attentional capture and delay attentional disengagement.

Yan M, Meng Z, Hu N, Chen A PeerJ. 2023; 11:e15868.

PMID: 37609441 PMC: 10441522. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15868.


References
1.
Anderson B, Laurent P, Yantis S . Generalization of value-based attentional priority. Vis cogn. 2013; 20(6). PMC: 3843520. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2012.679711. View

2.
Anderson B . A value-driven mechanism of attentional selection. J Vis. 2013; 13(3). PMC: 3630531. DOI: 10.1167/13.3.7. View

3.
Cowan N . The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behav Brain Sci. 2001; 24(1):87-114; discussion 114-85. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x01003922. View

4.
Lubman D, Peters L, Mogg K, Bradley B, Deakin J . Attentional bias for drug cues in opiate dependence. Psychol Med. 2000; 30(1):169-75. DOI: 10.1017/s0033291799001269. View

5.
Della Libera C, Chelazzi L . Learning to attend and to ignore is a matter of gains and losses. Psychol Sci. 2009; 20(6):778-84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02360.x. View