ArticlePsychopharmacology2026
Cross-modal conflict control deficits in male patients with substance use disorder are primarily associated with the response level.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleCross-modal conflict control (CMCC) refers to the ability to prioritize information from one sensory modality while suppressing interference from another when presented with incongruent stimuli. Patients with substance use disorder (SUD) often exhibit CMCC deficits, but it has not been clarified whether this deficit occurs at the perception or response level.
objectivesThis study investigated whether CMCC deficits in patients with SUD originate at perception or response levels and examined the modulatory role of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).
methods28 male patients with SUD completed a 2:1 mapping paradigm dissociating perception (PIC) and response level conflicts (RIC) under three tDCS conditions (anodal, cathodal, and sham). The paradigm required attending to visual or auditory stimuli while ignoring incongruent inputs from the other modality, with the left DLPFC as the stimulation target.
resultsAt the perception level, patients with SUD exhibited no significant difference between the degree of visual interference with auditory and auditory interference with visual. At the response level, visual interference with auditory was greater than auditory interference with visual in patients with SUD. Furthermore, anodal tDCS applied to the left DLPFC reduced auditory interference with visual perception at the perception level and diminished audiovisual cross-modal interference intensity at the response level.
conclusionsPatients with SUD show dissociable CMCC deficits, with visual interference dominating at the response level but not at the perception level. Anodal stimulation of the left DLPFC enhanced perceptual-level attention and reduced response-level conflict, whereas cathodal stimulation had little effect. These results underscore the key role of the left DLPFC in such deficits and support the therapeutic potential of anodal tDCS for addiction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41177825What 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.