» Articles » PMID: 29529411

Working Memory Training Improves Alcohol Users' Episodic Future Thinking: A Rate-Dependent Analysis

Overview
Date 2018 Mar 13
PMID 29529411
Citations 27
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Episodic thinking, whether past or future, uses similar neural machinery, and individuals with alcohol dependence have clear challenges with both. Moreover, alcohol-dependent individuals' narrowed temporal window likely gives rise to greater valuation of immediate rewards. We aimed to strengthen working memory (WM) in alcohol-dependent individuals and measure performance on near-transfer (novel WM) and far-transfer delay discounting (DD) tasks, including episodic future thinking (EFT) performance. Importantly, heterogeneous intervention responses could obscure a treatment effect due to individuals' baseline differences. Therefore, we considered WM, DD, and EFT DD scores using rate-dependent analyses.

Methods: A total of 50 alcohol-dependent individuals received either 20 active (Trained) or sham (Control) WM training sessions using the Cogmed adaptive WM training program. Participants completed a near-transfer novel WM task and far-transfer DD and EFT DD tasks before and after training.

Results: Active WM training improved performance on the near-transfer task. As determined by Oldham's correlation [r], initially low near-transfer task scores improved more than initially high scores (i.e., rate dependence) in the Trained group only. Moreover, Trained group individuals with the highest rates of EFT DD at baseline rate-dependently decreased following training, whereas WM training had no effect on DD alone.

Conclusions: These data support the notion that WM training improves near-transfer task performance and may enhance the effects of EFT DD in a subset of alcohol-dependent individuals trapped within the narrowest temporal window. Rate-dependent changes highlight that we should attend to baseline performance to better identify individuals who would most benefit from an intervention.

Citing Articles

Is Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Effective for Cognitive Dysfunction in Substance Use Disorders? A Systematic Review.

Zhang X, Huang M, Yu Y, Zhong X, Dai S, Dai Y Brain Sci. 2024; 14(8).

PMID: 39199449 PMC: 11352984. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14080754.


Human laboratory models of reward in substance use disorder.

Johansen A, Acuff S, Strickland J Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2024; 241():173803.

PMID: 38843997 PMC: 11223959. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2024.173803.


The Effects of Working Memory versus Adaptive Visual Search Control Training on Executive Cognitive Function.

Finn P, Nemes L, Bailey A, Gunn R, Wiemers E, Redick T J Cogn Enhanc. 2023; 6(3):327-339.

PMID: 37426470 PMC: 10327672. DOI: 10.1007/s41465-022-00241-y.


Mechanisms of impulsive choice: Experiments to explore and models to map the empirical terrain.

Smith T, Southern R, Kirkpatrick K Learn Behav. 2023; 51(4):355-391.

PMID: 36913144 PMC: 10497727. DOI: 10.3758/s13420-023-00577-1.


Utility of the 5-trial adjusting delay task in screening for high delay discounting rates: A cohort study of individuals reporting harmful alcohol and tobacco use.

Dwyer C, Craft W, Tegge A, Yeh Y, Bickel W Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2023; 31(4):786-792.

PMID: 36701520 PMC: 10368788. DOI: 10.1037/pha0000623.


References
1.
Schacter D, Addis D, Hassabis D, Martin V, Nathan Spreng R, Szpunar K . The future of memory: remembering, imagining, and the brain. Neuron. 2012; 76(4):677-94. PMC: 3815616. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.11.001. View

2.
Atance C, ONeill D . Episodic future thinking. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001; 5(12):533-539. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01804-0. View

3.
Bickel W, Landes R, Kurth-Nelson Z, Redish A . A QUANTITATIVE SIGNATURE OF SELF-CONTROL REPAIR: RATE-DEPENDENT EFFECTS OF SUCCESSFUL ADDICTION TREATMENT. Clin Psychol Sci. 2023; 2(6):685-695. PMC: 10424732. DOI: 10.1177/2167702614528162. View

4.
Daniel T, Stanton C, Epstein L . The future is now: comparing the effect of episodic future thinking on impulsivity in lean and obese individuals. Appetite. 2013; 71:120-5. PMC: 4185182. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.07.010. View

5.
Bickel W, Quisenberry A, Snider S . Does impulsivity change rate dependently following stimulant administration? A translational selective review and re-analysis. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2015; 233(1):1-18. PMC: 4703435. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-015-4148-y. View