Current forms of inhibitory training produce no greater reduction in drinking than simple assessment: A preliminary study

Abstract

Although concerns about low power limit confidence, the current study suggests that three forms of inhibitory training do not have a substantial effect on drinking beyond the effect of simple assessment, in comparison to a control task which does not promote impulsive responding. Future research needs to establish a training protocol that produces greater reductions in consumption not only relative to the effect of assessment but also relative to a BAI.

Alcohol-Specific Computerized Interventions to Alter Cognitive Biases: A Systematic Review of Effects on Experimental Tasks, Drinking Behavior, and Neuronal Activation

“…Considering the effects on experimental tasks, the data currently contradicts earlier summaries (24,67), and fails to support the notion that IT works via stimulus devaluation, at least not when assessed with the IAT (50,56,60,61,63). Thus, while earlier reviews conceptualized IT as a form of memory bias alteration (24), our current review shows that this conceptualization is contradicted by the available data and seems no longer justifiable.…”

“…Two studies reported that GNGbased IT decreased positive implicit associations to alcohol (57,58), supporting the stimulus devaluation hypothesis. Yet, five subsequent studies were unable to replicate this effect for GNGbased IT (50,56,60,61,63) or SST-based IT (60). As the IAT effect originally motivated the conceptual framing of IT as a form of memory bias modification, this conceptualization seems questionable in light of this current summary.…”

“…Moreover, less than 20% of the sample reported a desire to reduce drinking, which is why this study is classified as an experimental lab study rather than a clinical randomized controlled trial in this review. With respect to alcohol consumption measured in a taste test immediately after the intervention, four studies reported a decrease due to alcohol-specific IT (50,56,59,62), one study reported a nonsignificant trend (57), and another observed no effect other than an unexpected increase in one of the experimental conditions (63). The sole effect in Kilwein et al (61) was that it took the experimental group significantly longer to take the first sip of an alcoholic beverage.…”

“…One study (64) found a reduction of overall drinking days, but no effect on heavy drinking days. Three studies found no significant effects of IT on drinking behavior at 1-week follow-up (56,59,63), and in another study, the experimental group (Beer NoGo) targeted to reduce drinking even drank significantly more than the control group (Beer Go; 62). One study investigated the effects of IT in HD, who had reported to be motivated to reduce alcohol consumption, but found no significant effects on drinking across the 4-week study participation, nor at 2-, 4-, and 6-week follow-up (60).…”

Does alcohol cue inhibitory control training survive a context shift?

“…Some important issues have reduced enthusiasm for ICT as a technique for the reduction of alcohol consumption and other motivated behaviour (Jones, Hardman, Lawrence, & Field, 2017). First, there are emerging null effects in the published literature, which suggests that estimates of the average effect size in meta-analyses have been overestimated because of publication bias and small sample sizes (Adams, Lawrence, Verbruggen, & Chambers, 2017;Smith, Dash, Johnstone, Houben, & Field, 2017). Second, effect sizes could have been inflated by comparison to control conditions that encourage responding to alcohol cues whilst inhibiting to neutral cues.…”