A Comparative Event-Related Potentials Study between Alcohol Use Disorder, Gambling Disorder and Healthy Control Subjects through a Contextual Go/NoGo Task
Macha Dubuson,
Xavier Noël,
Charles Kornreich,
Catherine Hanak,
Mélanie Saeremans,
Salvatore Campanella
Affiliations
Macha Dubuson
Laboratoire de Psychologie Médicale et d’Addictologie, Faculty of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), CHU Brugmann, Psychiatry Institute, 4 Place Vangehuchten, ULB Neuroscience Institute (UNI), 1020 Brussels, Belgium
Xavier Noël
Laboratoire de Psychologie Médicale et d’Addictologie, Faculty of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), CHU Brugmann, Psychiatry Institute, 4 Place Vangehuchten, ULB Neuroscience Institute (UNI), 1020 Brussels, Belgium
Charles Kornreich
Laboratoire de Psychologie Médicale et d’Addictologie, Faculty of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), CHU Brugmann, Psychiatry Institute, 4 Place Vangehuchten, ULB Neuroscience Institute (UNI), 1020 Brussels, Belgium
Catherine Hanak
Laboratoire de Psychologie Médicale et d’Addictologie, Faculty of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), CHU Brugmann, Psychiatry Institute, 4 Place Vangehuchten, ULB Neuroscience Institute (UNI), 1020 Brussels, Belgium
Mélanie Saeremans
Laboratoire de Psychologie Médicale et d’Addictologie, Faculty of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), CHU Brugmann, Psychiatry Institute, 4 Place Vangehuchten, ULB Neuroscience Institute (UNI), 1020 Brussels, Belgium
Salvatore Campanella
Laboratoire de Psychologie Médicale et d’Addictologie, Faculty of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), CHU Brugmann, Psychiatry Institute, 4 Place Vangehuchten, ULB Neuroscience Institute (UNI), 1020 Brussels, Belgium
(1) Background: Inhibitory and rewarding processes that mediate attentional biases to addiction-related cues may slightly differ between patients suffering from alcohol use (AUD) or gambling (GD) disorder. (2) Methods: 23 AUD inpatients, 19 GD patients, and 22 healthy controls performed four separate Go/NoGo tasks, in, respectively, an alcohol, gambling, food, and neutral long-lasting cueing context during the recording of event-related potentials (ERPs). (3) Results: AUD patients showed a poorer inhibitory performance than controls (slower response latencies, lower N2d, and delayed P3d components). In addition, AUD patients showed a preserved inhibitory performance in the alcohol-related context (but a more disrupted one in the food-related context), while GD patients showed a specific inhibitory deficit in the game-related context, both indexed by N2d amplitude modulations. (4) Conclusions: Despite sharing common addiction-related mechanisms, AUD and GD patients showed different patterns of response to (non-)rewarding cues that should be taken into account in the therapeutic context.
