Back

Alcohol cues elicit different abnormalities in brain networks of abstinent men and women with alcohol use disorders

Sawyer, K. S.; Oscar-Berman, M.; Ruiz, S. M.; Marinkovic, K.; Valmas, M. M.; Harris, G. J.

2021-04-02 neuroscience
10.1101/2021.03.31.437778 bioRxiv
Show abstract

We employed fMRI in 84 men and women with and without a history of alcohol use disorders (ALC and NC, respectively), to explore how gender interacts with alcoholism as reflected in brain activity elicited by alcohol cues. Brain activation was measured in a working memory task (delayed matching-to-sample) with emotional faces as the sample and match cues. During the delay period, intervening distractors were either reward-salient cues (alcoholic beverages) or neutral cues (nonalcoholic beverages or scrambled pictures). ALC women (ALCw) had higher accuracy than ALC men (ALCm). Analyses of scans during the viewing of distractor images revealed significant group-by-gender interactions. Compared to NC men, ALCm evidenced lower activation contrast between reward-salient cues and neutral cues in default mode network regions (including superior prefrontal and precuneus areas), while ALCw had more activation than NC women. Similar interactions were observed for task-regions (including superior parietal, lateral occipital, and prefrontal areas). Region of interest analyses showed that the ALC group had significantly higher levels of activation throughout reward-related circuitry during alcohol distractor interference than during scrambled picture interference. These results suggest that abstinent ALCm and ALCw differ in processing reward-salient cues, which can impact treatment and recovery. HighlightsBrain reward regions activate highly when individuals with a history of alcohol use disorders view alcoholic beverages. The brain regions identified subserve vision, memory, and judgement. Opposite abnormalities in activation patterns appeared for alcoholic men and women.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.