Trial reportDrug and alcohol dependence2022
Cognitive training in recently-abstinent individuals with alcohol use disorder improves emotional stroop performance: Evidence from a randomized pilot trial.
Trial report in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differing effectiveness of transcranial random noise stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation for enhancing working memory in healthy individuals: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Trial
- Alcohol Use Disorder and Dementia: A Review.Alcohol research : current reviews · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCognitive training interventions appear capable of improving alcohol-associated neurobehavioral deficits in recently detoxified individuals. However, efficacy remains incompletely characterized in alcohol use disorder (AUD) and available data address only non-affective cognitive outcomes; enhancement of social cognition remains uninvestigated. We utilized a training paradigm in which successfully ignoring emotionally-valent stimuli benefitted task performance. We hypothesized trained individuals would display improvements in an affective inhibitory control task, and that individuals trained with high valence (relative to neutral) stimuli would evince greater improvement.
methods42 recently detoxified inpatients with AUD were assigned to one of three groups (Emotional Training, Neutral Training, or Treatment as Usual [TAU]). Training consisted of two computerized working memory tasks (dual-modality n-back task; attend/ignore task) which included task-irrelevant stimuli (emotional vs. neutral). Post-training performance efficiency (indexing speed-accuracy tradeoffs) in an emotional Stroop task was the outcome of interest.
resultsSignificant group by time interactions were detected for emotional Stroop performance, supporting our hypothesis that trained groups would exhibit greater improvement than TAU controls (F[2,39]=8.61, p < .01). Additionally, the emotional training condition appeared to result in greater improvement relative to neutral training (F[1,26]=4.98, p < .01).
conclusionResults are consistent with current literature suggesting the potential of training to enhance cognitive recovery in early abstinence. Findings inform the development of training protocols, suggesting integration of task-irrelevant distractor stimuli in training may enhance cognitive control outcomes. Further, they expand the relevant domains for application of training approaches, providing novel evidence that among individuals with AUD, training-associated benefits may extend to social cognitive domains.
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.