ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
On the Role of Stimulus-Response Context in Inhibitory Control in Alcohol Use Disorder.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distinct Alpha Connectivity Patterns During Response Inhibition in Alcohol Use Disorder.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Inhibitory control is affected by reward in patients with alcohol use disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Effects of Catecholaminergic and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Response Inhibition.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Article
- Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the differential effect of reward prospect on response selection and inhibition.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The behavioral and neural dynamics of response inhibition deficits in alcohol use disorder (AUD) are still largely unclear, despite them possibly being key to the mechanistic understanding of the disorder. Our study investigated the effect of automatic vs. controlled processing during response inhibition in participants with mild-to-moderate AUD and matched healthy controls. For this, a Simon Nogo task was combined with EEG signal decomposition, multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA), and source localization methods. The final sample comprised n = 59 (32♂) AUD participants and n = 64 (28♂) control participants. Compared with the control group, AUD participants showed overall better response inhibition performance. Furthermore, the AUD group was less influenced by the modulatory effect of automatic vs. controlled processes during response inhibition (i.e., had a smaller Simon Nogo effect). The neurophysiological data revealed that the reduced Simon Nogo effect in the AUD group was associated with reduced activation differences between congruent and incongruent Nogo trials in the inferior and middle frontal gyrus. Notably, the drinking frequency (but not the number of AUD criteria we had used to distinguish groups) predicted the extent of the Simon Nogo effect. We suggest that the counterintuitive advantage of participants with mild-to-moderate AUD over those in the control group could be explained by the allostatic model of drinking effects.
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.