Executive Dysfunction in Addiction

Jarmolowicz, David P.; Mueller, E. Terry; Koffarnus, Mikhail N.; Carter, Anne E.; Gatchalian, Kirstin M.; Bickel, Warren K.

doi:10.1002/9781118384404.ch2

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 278 publications

(269 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More broadly, from a clinical standpoint, the evidence of generally greater neural activity during DRD converges with an increasing appreciation of deficits in executive function in alcoholism and other forms of addiction (for a review, see Jarmolowicz et al . in press). Rather than general deficits, however, it appears that specific impulsivity‐related aspects of executive function are impaired (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissociable brain signatures of choice conflict and immediate reward preferences in alcohol use disorders

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impulsive delayed reward discounting (DRD) is an important behavioral process in alcohol use disorders (AUDs), reflecting incapacity to delay gratification. Recent work in neuroeconomics has begun to unravel the neural mechanisms supporting DRD, but applications of neuroeconomics in relation to AUDs have been limited. This study examined the neural mechanisms of DRD preferences in AUDs, with emphasis on dissociating activation patterns based on DRD choice type and level of cognitive conflict. Heavy drinking adult males with (n = 13) and without (n = 12) a diagnosis of an AUD completed a monetary DRD task during a functional magnetic resonance imaging scan. Participant responses were coded based on choice type (impulsive vs. restrained) and level of cognitive conflict (easy vs. hard). AUD+ participants exhibited significantly more impulsive DRD decision-making. Significant activation during DRD was found in several decision-making regions, including dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), insula, posterior parietal cortex (PPC), and posterior cingulate. An axis of cognitive conflict was also observed, with hard choices associated with anterior cingulate cortex and easy choices associated with activation in supplementary motor area. AUD+ individuals exhibited significant hyperactivity in regions associated with cognitive control (DLPFC) and prospective thought (PPC) and exhibited less task-related deactivation of areas associated with the brain's default network during DRD decisions. This study provides further clarification of the brain systems supporting DRD in general and in relation to AUDs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissociable brain signatures of choice conflict and immediate reward preferences in alcohol use disorders

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The idea that the more rational and more irrational aspects of human decision‐making are respectively governed by separate but functionally integrated brain regions has a considerable history. However, in the competing neuro‐behavioral decision systems model (Bickel et al ., ; Bickel and Yi, ; Jarmolowicz et al ., ), the view that behavior results from the interaction of two competing neural systems has recently become highly developed. This work incorporates both operant behavioral economics and neuroeconomics, and is especially relevant for its applicability to health issues.…”

Section: Applications and Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operant Behavioral Economics

Foxall

2015

Manage Decis Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of this special issue are to introduce managerial economists to a school of behavioral economics they may not yet have encountered by way of accounts by leading researchers of its basic tenets, methods, and applications. This overview introduces the papers by setting them in the context of the development of operant behavioral economics. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. It is pleasing when disciplines, whose initial development trajectories are as diverse as those of operant psychology and microeconomics, demonstrate an affinity that promotes both their interaction and their mutual benefit. The potential became obvious when behavioral psychologists began to consider and compare the ways in which micro-economists and behavioral psychologists study behavior (Hursh, 1978(Hursh, , 1980(Hursh, , 1984Lea, 1978). Around the same time, some economists were seeking an experimental analysis of their subject matter (e.g., Castro and Weingarten, 1970;Smith, 1982). The contingencies, likely to bring about a productive collaboration, were being assembled. This does not mean that the interaction is seamless or without controversy -who would want that? -but that two intellectual communities are able to learn from one another and to grow as a result.The resulting research program, operant behavioral economics, contributes positively to the objectives of both disciplines by bringing theoretical perspectives and novel methodologies to bear on each of its constituents. With some simplification, while microeconomics permits the conceptualization of behavior as the allocation of scarce resources among competing ends, operant psychology (or behavior analysis, as it is more usually known) conceives behavior in terms of the allocation of a number of responses that the individual can emit among alternative reinforcing outcomes (Staddon, 1980;Kagel et al., 1995;Foxall and Sigurdsson, 2013). The term 'operant' denotes behaviors that operate on the environment to generate consequences, which are followed by changes in the rate at which the behaviors are performed: those consequences that are followed by an increase in response rate are known as reinforcers and those followed by a reduction in rate, as punishers (Skinner, 1953). The 'three-term contingency', which provides the basic explanatory device of operant behaviorism, takes the form S D ⟶ R ⟶ S r , where a discriminative stimulus, S D , is an element of the environment in the presence of which a response, R, has been rewarded by the appearance of another environmental element, S r , which because of its 'strengthening' effect on the behavior is known as a reinforcer. When the occurrence of a response can be accurately predicted from the appearance of the discriminative stimulus, it is said to be under stimulus control, and this will be maintained as long as the response is followed from time to time by the reinforcer. (For greater detail on the subtleties of operant psychology and its philosophical implications for the explanation of behavior, see inter alia Baum, 2...

show abstract

“…A major premise of the CNDS model is, therefore, that the impulsive and executive systems must be in some respects antipodal categories and yet contribute in a complementary manner to the determination of the individual’s temporal discounting behavior and valuation of currently and potentially available reinforcers. These have been concerns of the CNDS model’s authors who also emphasize the role of metacognition (i.e., “cognition about cognition” or “thought about thought”) in the regulation of inter-system connectivity ( Jarmolowicz et al, 2013 ). In attempting to clarify further the factors responsible for the achievement of relative balance between the impulsive and executive systems, this paper explores further the antipodality of the model’s categorical component decision systems and, in particular, the nature and role of metacognition in their relationships.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, it demonstrates which elements of the impulsive system are antipodal to elements of the executive system (and can, therefore, be properly considered categorial components of these antithetical tendencies), as well as those which play a broader role in the execution of appropriate behaviors. Prominent among the latter are what the CNDS model identifies as metacognition and the goal-directed regulation of behavior ( Jarmolowicz et al, 2013 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognitive Control of Categorial Neurobehavioral Decision Systems

Foxall

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The competing neuro-behavioral decision systems (CNDS) model proposes that the degree to which an individual discounts the future is a function of the relative hyperactivity of an impulsive system based on the limbic and paralimbic brain regions and the relative hypoactivity of an executive system based in prefrontal cortex (PFC). The model depicts the relationship between these categorial systems in terms of the antipodal neurophysiological, behavioral, and decision (cognitive) functions that engender normal and addictive responding. However, a case may be made for construing several components of the impulsive and executive systems depicted in the model as categories (elements) of additional systems that are concerned with the metacognitive control of behavior. Hence, this paper proposes a category-based structure for understanding the effects on behavior of CNDS, which includes not only the impulsive and executive systems of the basic model but a superordinate level of reflective or rational decision-making. Following recent developments in the modeling of cognitive control which contrasts Type 1 (rapid, autonomous, parallel) processing with Type 2 (slower, computationally demanding, sequential) processing, the proposed model incorporates an arena in which the potentially conflicting imperatives of impulsive and executive systems are examined and from which a more appropriate behavioral response than impulsive choice emerges. This configuration suggests a forum in which the interaction of picoeconomic interests, which provide a cognitive dimension for CNDS, can be conceptualized. This proposition is examined in light of the resolution of conflict by means of bundling.

show abstract

Executive Dysfunction in Addiction

Cited by 10 publications

References 278 publications

Dissociable brain signatures of choice conflict and immediate reward preferences in alcohol use disorders

Dissociable brain signatures of choice conflict and immediate reward preferences in alcohol use disorders

Operant Behavioral Economics

Metacognitive Control of Categorial Neurobehavioral Decision Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About