TY - JOUR

T1 - Cognitive control in patients with alcohol use disorder

T2 - Testing a three-function model

AU - Трусова, Анна Владимировна

AU - Березина, Анна Андреевна

AU - Климанова, Светлана Георгиевна

AU - Гвоздецкий, Антон Николаевич

N1 - Funding Information: This research was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR, Department of Humanitarian and Social Science) project no. 16-06-01043.

PY - 2018/6

Y1 - 2018/6

N2 - Background: Cognitive control deficits are believed to contribute to continued alcohol consumption in patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Тhe majority of studies exploring cognitive functioning in AUD focused on isolated components of cognitive control. The aim of the current study is to test cognitive control models for explaining cognitive dysfunctions in patients with AUD. Materials and methods: In total, 53 participants with AUD undergoing detoxification inpatient treatment were assessed using the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Affective Disorders (BAC-A), the Continuous Performance Test, identical pairs (CPT-IP) and the Stroop test. Results: A model of patients’ cognitive control dysfunction is developed using principal component analysis. It includes response inhibition and working memory components and explains 87.3% of cognitive control variance. The comparison between “low” and “high” cognitive control groups yielded significant differences in verbal and working memory (p<0.001), processing speed (p=0.006) and emotional processing (p<0.01) tasks. When compared with the normative data, the low cognitive control group exhibited deficits in working memory, motor skills, processing speed, planning and decision-making, and emotional processing (all at the p<0.001 level). No other significant differences were observed. Discussion: The cognitive control model, which includes working memory and response inhibition, might be more accurate in explaining cognitive deficits in AUD. The clinically and demographically equal groups differed in cognitive control abilities, motor skills, processing speed and emotional interference control. Conclusions: This is one of the first studies examining cognitive control in Russian patients with AUD. The findings suggest differences in premorbid cognitive functioning or differences in vulnerability to neurotoxic effects of alcohol among patients with AUD with varying levels of cognitive control.

AB - Background: Cognitive control deficits are believed to contribute to continued alcohol consumption in patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Тhe majority of studies exploring cognitive functioning in AUD focused on isolated components of cognitive control. The aim of the current study is to test cognitive control models for explaining cognitive dysfunctions in patients with AUD. Materials and methods: In total, 53 participants with AUD undergoing detoxification inpatient treatment were assessed using the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Affective Disorders (BAC-A), the Continuous Performance Test, identical pairs (CPT-IP) and the Stroop test. Results: A model of patients’ cognitive control dysfunction is developed using principal component analysis. It includes response inhibition and working memory components and explains 87.3% of cognitive control variance. The comparison between “low” and “high” cognitive control groups yielded significant differences in verbal and working memory (p<0.001), processing speed (p=0.006) and emotional processing (p<0.01) tasks. When compared with the normative data, the low cognitive control group exhibited deficits in working memory, motor skills, processing speed, planning and decision-making, and emotional processing (all at the p<0.001 level). No other significant differences were observed. Discussion: The cognitive control model, which includes working memory and response inhibition, might be more accurate in explaining cognitive deficits in AUD. The clinically and demographically equal groups differed in cognitive control abilities, motor skills, processing speed and emotional interference control. Conclusions: This is one of the first studies examining cognitive control in Russian patients with AUD. The findings suggest differences in premorbid cognitive functioning or differences in vulnerability to neurotoxic effects of alcohol among patients with AUD with varying levels of cognitive control.

KW - Alcohol dependence

KW - Cognitive control

KW - Cognitive impairment in AUD.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049004573&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.12740/APP/86211

DO - 10.12740/APP/86211

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 34

EP - 41

JO - Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy

JF - Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy

SN - 1509-2046

IS - 2

ER -