Trial reportPsychopharmacology2017
Cue avoidance training and inhibitory control training for the reduction of alcohol consumption: a comparison of effectiveness and investigation of their mechanisms of action.
Trial report in Psychopharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Alcohol-Specific Computerized Interventions to Alter Cognitive Biases: A Systematic Review of Effects on Experimental Tasks, Drinking Behavior, and Neuronal Activation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Pooled it
- Computerized cognitive training for problem gambling: A randomized controlled trial (TRAIN-online).Journal of behavioral addictions · 2025Trial
- "Push it!" or "Hold it!"? A comparison of nicotine-avoidance training and nicotine-inhibition training in smokers motivated to quit.Psychopharmacology · 2022Trial
- Does alcohol cue inhibitory control training survive a context shift?Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2020Trial
- A randomized controlled trial of inhibitory control training for the reduction of alcohol consumption in problem drinkers.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology · 2018Trial
- A Test of Multisession Automatic Action Tendency Retraining to Reduce Alcohol Consumption Among Young Adults in the Context of a Human Laboratory Paradigm.Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2018Trial
- Modification of inhibitory control and craving through transcranial direct current stimulation as an add-on treatment for substance use disorder: protocol for a randomized controlled study.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Approach avoidance training versus Sham in veterans with alcohol use disorder: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Pilot testing of an adaptive, individualized inhibitory control training for binge drinking: first evidence on feasibility, acceptance, and efficacy.Psychological research · 2023Review
- Forgetting Alcohol: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Memory Inhibition Training in Young Binge Drinkers.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Cognition-tracking-based strategies for diagnosis and treatment of minimal hepatic encephalopathy.Metabolic brain disease · 2020Review
- Event-related and readiness potentials when preparing to approach and avoid alcohol cues following cue avoidance training in heavy drinkers.Psychopharmacology · 2020Article
- Review
- Article
- A dual process perspective on advances in cognitive science and alcohol use disorder.Clinical psychology review · 2019Review
- Behavioral and Cerebral Impairments Associated with Binge Drinking in Youth: A Critical Review.Psychologica Belgica · 2019Article
- A Roadmap for Integrating Neuroscience Into Addiction Treatment: A Consensus of the Neuroscience Interest Group of the International Society of Addiction Medicine.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Review
- A Review of Developmental Considerations in Human Laboratory Alcohol Research.Current addiction reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleBoth cue avoidance training (CAT) and inhibitory control training (ICT) reduce alcohol consumption in the laboratory. However, these interventions have never been directly compared and their mechanisms of action are poorly understood.
objectivesWe compared the effects of both types of training on alcohol consumption and investigated if they led to theoretically predicted changes in alcohol avoidance (CAT) or alcohol inhibition (ICT) associations and changes in evaluation of alcohol cues.
methodsHeavy drinking young adults (N = 120) were randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) CAT (repeatedly pushing alcohol cues away with a joystick), (2) sham (control) CAT; (3) ICT (repeatedly inhibiting behaviour in response to alcohol cues); or (4) sham (control) ICT. Changes in reaction times and automatic evaluations of alcohol cues were assessed before and after training using assessment versions of tasks used in training and the implicit association test (IAT), respectively. Finally, participants completed a bogus taste test as a measure of ad libitum alcohol consumption.
resultsCompared to sham conditions, CAT and ICT both led to reduced alcohol consumption although there was no difference between the two. Neither intervention affected performance on the IAT, and changes in reaction time did not suggest the formation of robust alcohol avoidance (CAT) or alcohol inhibition (ICT) associations after training.
conclusionsCAT and ICT yielded equivalent reductions in alcohol consumption in the laboratory. However, these behavioural effects were not accompanied by devaluation of stimuli or the formation of alcohol avoidance or alcohol inhibition associations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.