A Systematic Review on Common and Distinct Neural Correlates of Risk-taking in Substance-related and Non-substance Related Addictions.

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s11065-022-09552-5
Philippa Hüpen, Ute Habel, Mikhail Votinov, Joseph W Kable, Lisa Wagels
{"title":"A Systematic Review on Common and Distinct Neural Correlates of Risk-taking in Substance-related and Non-substance Related Addictions.","authors":"Philippa Hüpen,&nbsp;Ute Habel,&nbsp;Mikhail Votinov,&nbsp;Joseph W Kable,&nbsp;Lisa Wagels","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09552-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Both substance-related as well as non-substance-related addictions may include recurrent engagement in risky actions despite adverse outcomes. We here apply a unified approach and review task-based neuroimaging studies on substance-related (SRAs) and non-substance related addictions (NSRAs) to examine commonalities and differences in neural correlates of risk-taking in these two addiction types. To this end, we conducted a systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Two databases were searched with predefined search terms to identify neuroimaging studies on risk-taking tasks in individuals with addiction disorders. In total, 19 studies on SRAs (comprising a total of 648 individuals with SRAs) and 10 studies on NSRAs (comprising a total of 187 individuals with NSRAs) were included. Risk-related brain activation in SRAs and NSRAs was summarized individually and subsequently compared to each other. Results suggest convergent altered risk-related neural processes, including hyperactivity in the OFC and the striatum. As characteristic for both addiction types, these brain regions may represent an underlying mechanism of suboptimal decision-making. In contrast, decreased DLPFC activity may be specific to SRAs and decreased IFG activity could only be identified for NSRAs. The precuneus and posterior cingulate show elevated activity in SRAs, while findings regarding these areas were mixed in NSRAs. Additional scarce evidence suggests decreased ventral ACC activity and increased dorsal ACC activity in both addiction types. Associations between identified activation patterns with drug use severity underpin the clinical relevance of these findings. However, this exploratory evidence should be interpreted with caution and should be regarded as preliminary. Future research is needed to evaluate the findings gathered by this review.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10148787/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09552-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Both substance-related as well as non-substance-related addictions may include recurrent engagement in risky actions despite adverse outcomes. We here apply a unified approach and review task-based neuroimaging studies on substance-related (SRAs) and non-substance related addictions (NSRAs) to examine commonalities and differences in neural correlates of risk-taking in these two addiction types. To this end, we conducted a systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Two databases were searched with predefined search terms to identify neuroimaging studies on risk-taking tasks in individuals with addiction disorders. In total, 19 studies on SRAs (comprising a total of 648 individuals with SRAs) and 10 studies on NSRAs (comprising a total of 187 individuals with NSRAs) were included. Risk-related brain activation in SRAs and NSRAs was summarized individually and subsequently compared to each other. Results suggest convergent altered risk-related neural processes, including hyperactivity in the OFC and the striatum. As characteristic for both addiction types, these brain regions may represent an underlying mechanism of suboptimal decision-making. In contrast, decreased DLPFC activity may be specific to SRAs and decreased IFG activity could only be identified for NSRAs. The precuneus and posterior cingulate show elevated activity in SRAs, while findings regarding these areas were mixed in NSRAs. Additional scarce evidence suggests decreased ventral ACC activity and increased dorsal ACC activity in both addiction types. Associations between identified activation patterns with drug use severity underpin the clinical relevance of these findings. However, this exploratory evidence should be interpreted with caution and should be regarded as preliminary. Future research is needed to evaluate the findings gathered by this review.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
物质相关和非物质相关成瘾中冒险行为的共同和独特神经关联的系统综述。
物质相关成瘾和非物质相关成瘾都可能包括不顾不良后果反复从事危险行为。在此,我们采用统一的方法,回顾了基于任务的物质相关成瘾(sra)和非物质相关成瘾(nsra)的神经影像学研究,以检查这两种成瘾类型中冒险神经相关因素的共性和差异。为此,我们根据PRISMA指南进行了系统审查。用预定义的搜索词搜索了两个数据库,以确定成瘾障碍患者冒险任务的神经影像学研究。共纳入19项SRAs研究(共648例SRAs患者)和10项nsra研究(共187例nsra患者)。分别总结SRAs和nsra的风险相关脑激活情况,然后相互比较。结果表明,趋同性改变了风险相关的神经过程,包括OFC和纹状体的过度活跃。作为两种成瘾类型的特征,这些大脑区域可能代表了次优决策的潜在机制。相反,DLPFC活性的降低可能是sra所特有的,而IFG活性的降低只能在nsra中发现。在sra中,楔前叶和后扣带的活动升高,而在nsra中,这些区域的发现是混合的。额外的稀缺证据表明,在两种成瘾类型中,腹侧前扣带活动减少,背侧前扣带活动增加。已确定的激活模式与药物使用严重程度之间的关联支持了这些发现的临床相关性。然而,这一探索性证据应谨慎解释,并应视为初步证据。需要进一步的研究来评估本综述收集的发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
期刊最新文献
Verbal and Spatial Working Memory Capacity in Blind Adults and the Possible Influence of Age at Blindness Onset: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Reliability of Theory of Mind Tasks in Schizophrenia, ASD, and Nonclinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis. Not All Stroop-Type Tasks Are Alike: Assessing the Impact of Stimulus Material, Task Design, and Cognitive Demand via Meta-analyses Across Neuroimaging Studies Cognitive Training During Midlife: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gradient Organization of Space, Time, and Numbers in the Brain: A Meta-analysis of Neuroimaging Studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1