People with tobacco use disorder exhibit more prefrontal activity during preparatory control but reduced anterior cingulate activity during reactive control

Abstract

Reduced inhibitory control and a hypersensitivity to reward are key deficits in drug dependents; however, they tend to be studied in isolation. Here, we seek to understand the neural processes underlying control over reward and how this is different in people with a tobacco use disorder (pTUD). A novel variant of the monetary incentive delay task was performed by pTUD (n = 20) and non-smokers (n = 20), where we added a stop-signal component such that participants had to inhibit prepotent responses to earn a larger monetary reward. Brain activity was recorded using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). We estimated stop signal reaction times (SSRTs), an indicator of impulsivity, and correlated these with brain activity. Inhibitory accuracy scores did not differ between the control group and pTUD. However, pTUD had slower SSRTs, suggesting that they may find it harder to inhibit responses. Brain data revealed that pTUD had greater preparatory control activity in the middle frontal gyrus and inferior frontal gyrus prior to successful inhibitions over reward. In contrast, non-smokers had greater reactive control associated with more activity in the anterior cingulate cortex during these successful inhibitions. SSRT-brain activity correlations revealed that pTUD engaged more control-related prefrontal brain regions when SSRTs are slower. Overall, while the inhibition accuracy scores were similar between groups, differential neural processes and strategies were used to successfully inhibit a prepotent response. The findings suggest that increasing preparatory control in pTUD may be one possible treatment target in order to increase inhibitory control over reward.

Is impulsivity related to attentional bias in cigarette smokers? An exploration across levels of nicotine dependency and deprivation.

“…disinhibition previously observed following 3-72 nicotine withdrawal across a range of inhibitory control tasks (Mendrek et al, 2006;Dawkins et al, 2007;Harrison et al, 2009;Charles-Walsh et al, 2014;Tsaur et al, 2015;Kalhan et al, 2022). The present study is the first to demonstrate that short-term withdrawal can also increase risky decision-making on the IST.…”

“…In comparison to HSs, 12-h deprived smokers displayed significantly poorer inhibitory control and heightened reflection impulsivity, yet significantly lower levels of impulsive choice. This supports the heightened disinhibition previously observed following 3–72 h of nicotine withdrawal across a range of inhibitory control tasks (Mendrek et al ., 2006; Dawkins et al ., 2007; Harrison et al ., 2009; Charles-Walsh et al ., 2014; Tsaur et al ., 2015; Kalhan et al ., 2022). The present study is the first to demonstrate that short-term withdrawal can also increase risky decision-making on the IST.…”

“…Nicotine deprivation has also been shown to result in poorer inhibitory control (e.g. Mendrek et al ., 2006; Dawkins et al ., 2007; Harrison et al ., 2009; Charles-Walsh et al ., 2014; Tsaur et al ., 2015; Kalhan et al ., 2022), whereas short-term withdrawal has been found to both heighten (Field et al ., 2006; Yi and Landes, 2012; McCarthy et al ., 2018) and have no effect (Mitchell, 2004; Roewer et al ., 2015) on levels of impulsive choice, with no evidence yet available for the impact of deprivation on reflection impulsivity. These findings suggest different dimensions of impulsivity may contribute to smoking maintenance during different stages of addiction, and particularly highlight the need for more evidence to evaluate the role of reflection impulsivity.…”

Caffeinated soda intake in children is associated with neurobehavioral risk factors for substance misuse

“…Previous studies have reported reduced activity in the IFG as neural markers of substance abuse and ADHD [48–50]. However, increased activity in the IFG has also been reported in individuals with tobacco use disorder [51], and increased IFG activity suggests that more preparatory effort is required for successful inhibition [52].…”