No effect of attentional bias modification training in methamphetamine users receiving residential treatment
- 219 Downloads
Attentional bias toward drug-related stimuli is a feature of drug addiction that is linked to craving and drug-seeking behavior.
An attentional bias modification (ABM) program was tested in 42 methamphetamine-dependent clients (DSM-IV criteria) receiving residential treatment for their drug use. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups (N = 21 each), receiving 12 sessions of either computerized ABM training (designed to train attention away from methamphetamine stimuli 100% of the time) or an attentional control condition (designed to train attention away from methamphetamine stimuli 50% of the time). Outcome measures included attentional bias to methamphetamine-related stimuli on a probe detection task, self-reported craving, and preferences to view methamphetamine-related images on a Simulated Drug Choice Task. A subset of participants (N = 17) also underwent fMRI in a cue-induced craving paradigm.
Poor split-half reliability was observed for the probe detection task. Using this task, attentional bias toward methamphetamine-related stimuli was greater after training than at baseline, irrespective of group (p = 0.037). Spontaneous and cue-induced methamphetamine craving diminished with time (ps < 0.01), but ABM training did not influence these effects (group by time interactions, ps > 0.05). ABM training did not influence selection of methamphetamine-related pictures in the Simulated Drug Choice task (p > 0.05). In the fMRI assessment, cue-induced activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex was reduced over time, without an effect of ABM training.
ABM training did not improve several clinically relevant variables in treatment-seeking methamphetamine users. Additional research is needed to improve the measurement of attentional bias.
KeywordsStimulant Substance abuse Attentional bias Craving
This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse [R21DA040156 (EDL); K01DA037452 (SJM)], the Thomas P. and Katherine K. Pike Chair in Addiction Studies (EDL), and the Marjorie Greene Family Trust.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Beck AT (1967) Depression: clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. Hoeber Medical Division, Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Cox WM, Hogan LM, Kristian MR, Race JH (2002) Alcohol attentional bias as a predictor of alcohol abusers’ treatment outcome. Drug Alcohol Depend 68(3):237–243Google Scholar
- Diaz-Batanero C, Dominguez-Salas S, Moraleda E, Fernandez-Calderon F, Lozano OM (2018) Attentional bias toward alcohol stimuli as a predictor of treatment retention in cocaine dependence and alcohol user patients. Drug Alcohol Depend 182:40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.10.005 Google Scholar
- Friese M, Bargas-Avila J, Hofmann W, Wiers RW (2010) Alcohol-related memory structures predict eye movements for social drinkers with low executive control. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 1(2):143–151Google Scholar
- Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO (1991) The Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict 86(9):1119–1127Google Scholar
- Lang PJ (2005) International affective picture system (IAPS): affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. In: Technical Report A-8. University of Florida, GainsvilleGoogle Scholar
- MacLeod C, Mathews A (1988) Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat. Q J Exp Psychol A 40(4):653–670Google Scholar
- MacLeod C, Mathews A, Tata P (1986) Attentional bias in emotional disorders. J Abnorm Psychol 95(1):15–20Google Scholar
- McKetin, R., Najman, J. M., Baker, A. L., Lubman, D. I., Dawe, S., Ali, R., . . . Mamun, A. (2012). Evaluating the impact of community-based treatment options on methamphetamine use: findings from the Methamphetamine Treatment Evaluation Study (MATES). Addiction, 107(11), 1998–2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03933.x Google Scholar
- Nichols TE, Holmes AP (2002) Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: a primer with examples. Hum Brain Mapp 15(1):1–25Google Scholar
- Sheehan, D. V., Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, K. H., Amorim, P., Janavs, J., Weiller, E., . . . Dunbar, G. C. (1998). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry, 59 Suppl 20, 22–33;quiz 34–57Google Scholar
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2013). Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: summary of National Findings NSDUH Series H-46, HHS. . Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
- UNODC (2017) World drug report. United Nations PublicationGoogle Scholar
- Waters H, Green MW (2003) A demonstration of attentional bias, using a novel dual task paradigm, towards clinically salient material in recovering alcohol abuse patients? Psychol Med 33(3):491–498Google Scholar
- Wechsler, D. (2001). Wechsler test of adult reading: WTAR. The psychological corporation, San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
- Wiers RW, Boffo M, Field M (2018) What’s in a trial? On the importance of distinguishing between experimental lab studies and randomized controlled trials: the case of cognitive bias modification and alcohol use disorders. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 79(3):333–343Google Scholar
- Wiers RW, Gladwin TE, Hofmann W, Salemink E, Ridderinkhof RK (2013) Cognitive bias modification and cognitive control training in addiction and related psychopathology: mechanisms, clinical perspectives, and ways forward. Clin Psychol Sci 1(2):192–212Google Scholar
- Woolrich MW, Ripley BD, Brady M, Smith SM (2001) Temporal autocorrelation in univariate linear modeling of FMRI data. Neuroimage 14(6):1370–1386Google Scholar
- Zorick T, Sevak RJ, Miotto K, Shoptaw S, Swanson AN, Clement C et al (2009) Pilot safety evaluation of varenicline for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence. J Exp Pharmacol 2010(2):13–18Google Scholar