Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26861797›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2016

Regulating task-monitoring systems in response to variable reward contingencies and outcomes in cocaine addicts.

Kristen P Morie, Pierfilippo De Sanctis, Hugh Garavan, John J Foxe

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Cognitive Mechanisms and Therapeutic Targets of Addiction.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kristen P MorieThe Sheryl and Daniel R. Tishman Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center (CERC), Albert Einstein College of Medicine & Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA.
Pierfilippo De SanctisThe Sheryl and Daniel R. Tishman Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center (CERC), Albert Einstein College of Medicine & Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA.
Hugh GaravanDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, 1 South Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
John J FoxeThe Sheryl and Daniel R. Tishman Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center (CERC), Albert Einstein College of Medicine & Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA. foxe@nki.rfmh.org.
City University of New York · USThe Graduate Center, CUNY · USUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

Translational Neuroimaging CoreP30HD071593 · NICHD · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI WALKLEY, STEVEN UPSHAW · 2011 to 2015
$5.6M
NICHD NIH HHS P30 HD071593
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe investigated anticipatory and consummatory reward processing in cocaine addiction. In addition, we set out to assess whether task-monitoring systems were appropriately recalibrated in light of variable reward schedules. We also examined neural measures of task-monitoring and reward processing as a function of hedonic tone, since anhedonia is a vulnerability marker for addiction that is obviously germane in the context of reward processing.

methodHigh-density event-related potentials were recorded while participants performed a speeded response task that systematically varied anticipated probabilities of reward receipt. The paradigm dissociated feedback regarding task success (or failure) from feedback regarding the value of reward (or loss), so that task-monitoring and reward processing could be examined in partial isolation. Twenty-three active cocaine abusers and 23 age-matched healthy controls participated.

resultsCocaine abusers showed amplified anticipatory responses to reward predictive cues, but crucially, these responses were not as strongly modulated by reward probability as in controls. Cocaine users also showed blunted responses to feedback about task success or failure and did not use this information to update predictions about reward. In turn, they showed clearly blunted responses to reward feedback. In controls and users, measures of anhedonia were associated with reward motivation. In cocaine users, anhedonia was also associated with diminished monitoring and reward feedback responses.

conclusionFindings imply that reward anticipation and monitoring deficiencies in addiction are associated with increased responsiveness to reward cues but impaired ability to predict reward in light of task contingencies, compounded by deficits in responding to actual reward outcomes.

Indexed as

RewardAdultAnhedoniaBrainCocaine-Related DisordersCuesEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationReaction TimeAddictionAnhedoniaEEGERPMotivationRewardSubstance abuseTask monitoring

Identifiers

PMID26861797
OpenAlexW2253305682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.