Matt Field
Department of Psychological Sciences

Theoretical background

Automatic cognitive processes in addiction

Cognitive training in other domains

Interventions for addiction:
◦ Attentional bias modification
◦ Cue avoidance training
◦ Inhibitory control training

Where do we go from here?
Healthy brain
Dysregulated (addicted) brain
Volkow et al. (2008)
Attentional bias: the visual probe task
===============
Courtesy of Ingmar Franken
Automatic approach tendencies: the
stimulus-response compatibility task
(1a)
The stimulus-response compatibility
task (1b)
The stimulus-response compatibility
task (2a)
The stimulus-response compatibility
task (2b)
Christiansen et al., 2012; Field et al., 2008, 2011


Automatic approach predicts problem
drinking in adolescents (Peeters et al., 2012,
2013)
But strong automatic avoidance seems to
predicts relapse to drinking in alcoholics
tested in treatment (Spruyt et al., 2013).


Alcohol-dependent patients have relatively
poor performance on the stop-signal and
related tasks (e.g. Goudriaan et al., 2006).
Disinhibition is positively correlated with
alcohol consumption and problems in ‘social’
drinkers (Christiansen et al., 2012).
500 ms
↑
Probe consistently replaces alcohol pictures.
Over repeated (896) trials, participants should attend to the alcohol pictures.
Attentional training: ‘avoid alcohol’ group (1)
500 ms
Attentional training: ‘avoid alcohol’ group (2)
↑
Probe consistently replaces control pictures.
Over repeated (896) trials, participants should avoid the alcohol pictures.
Study
Effects on
bias?
Generalisation?
Effects on
craving?
Effects on
drugseeking?
Field &
Eastwood (05)
- alcohol
YES
Not assessed
YES
YES
Field et al (07)
- alcohol
YES
NO (?)
Aware only
NO
Schoenmakers
et al (07) alcohol
YES
NO
NO
NO
Attwood et al
(09) - tobacco
YES
Not assessed
Males only
NO
Field et al (09)
- tobacco
YES
NO
NO
NO
McHugh et al
(10) – tobacco
NO
NO
NO
Not
assessed



Fadardi & Cox (2010): reduction in drinking
behaviour (but no control group)
Schoenmakers et al. (2010): no group
differences in relapse rate, although ABM did
delay the time until relapse
Other studies….
(Inhibit)
Alcohol restraint group:
Mostly go
Mostly stop
Mostly stop
Mostly go
Always go
Always go
Alcohol restraint group:
Disinhibition group:




Houben et al (2011) – cued Go/No-Go training
leads to reduced alcohol consumption at one-week
follow-up, but not immediately
Houben et al (2012) – replicated, and also showed
that effects were mediated by change in implicit
alcohol associations
Bowley et al (2013) – same intervention, produced
immediate reduction in drinking behaviour but no
change at one-week follow-up
> All studies with student volunteers, who were not
motivated to cut down
?



Could all types of training work through
similar mechanism (changing automatic
alcohol associations)?
Is there robust evidence that these cognitive
processes play a causal role in addiction?
Are cognitive interventions likely to improve
on existing treatments?