Cargando…

Does incentive-elicited nucleus accumbens activation differ by substance of abuse? An examination with adolescents

Numerous questions surround the nature of reward processing in the developing adolescent brain, particularly in regard to polysubstance use. We therefore sought to examine incentive-elicited brain activation in the context of three common substances of abuse (cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol). Due to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karoly, Hollis C., Bryan, Angela D., Weiland, Barbara J., Mayer, Andrew, Dodd, Andrew, Feldstein Ewing, Sarah W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26070843
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.05.005
_version_ 1782402396337471488
author Karoly, Hollis C.
Bryan, Angela D.
Weiland, Barbara J.
Mayer, Andrew
Dodd, Andrew
Feldstein Ewing, Sarah W.
author_facet Karoly, Hollis C.
Bryan, Angela D.
Weiland, Barbara J.
Mayer, Andrew
Dodd, Andrew
Feldstein Ewing, Sarah W.
author_sort Karoly, Hollis C.
collection PubMed
description Numerous questions surround the nature of reward processing in the developing adolescent brain, particularly in regard to polysubstance use. We therefore sought to examine incentive-elicited brain activation in the context of three common substances of abuse (cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol). Due to the role of the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) in incentive processing, we compared activation in this region during anticipation of reward and loss using a monetary incentive delay (MID) task. Adolescents (ages 14–18; 66% male) were matched on age, gender, and frequency of use of any common substances within six distinct groups: cannabis-only (n = 14), tobacco-only (n = 34), alcohol-only (n = 12), cannabis + tobacco (n = 17), cannabis + tobacco + alcohol (n = 17), and non-using controls (n = 38). All groups showed comparable behavioral performance on the MID task. The tobacco-only group showed decreased bilateral nucleus accumbens (NAcc) activation during reward anticipation as compared to the alcohol-only group, the control group, and both polysubstance groups. Interestingly, no differences emerged between the cannabis-only group and any of the other groups. Results from this study suggest that youth who tend toward single-substance tobacco use may possess behavioral and/or neurobiological characteristics that differentiate them from both their substance-using and non-substance-using peers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4657439
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46574392016-12-01 Does incentive-elicited nucleus accumbens activation differ by substance of abuse? An examination with adolescents Karoly, Hollis C. Bryan, Angela D. Weiland, Barbara J. Mayer, Andrew Dodd, Andrew Feldstein Ewing, Sarah W. Dev Cogn Neurosci Original Research Numerous questions surround the nature of reward processing in the developing adolescent brain, particularly in regard to polysubstance use. We therefore sought to examine incentive-elicited brain activation in the context of three common substances of abuse (cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol). Due to the role of the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) in incentive processing, we compared activation in this region during anticipation of reward and loss using a monetary incentive delay (MID) task. Adolescents (ages 14–18; 66% male) were matched on age, gender, and frequency of use of any common substances within six distinct groups: cannabis-only (n = 14), tobacco-only (n = 34), alcohol-only (n = 12), cannabis + tobacco (n = 17), cannabis + tobacco + alcohol (n = 17), and non-using controls (n = 38). All groups showed comparable behavioral performance on the MID task. The tobacco-only group showed decreased bilateral nucleus accumbens (NAcc) activation during reward anticipation as compared to the alcohol-only group, the control group, and both polysubstance groups. Interestingly, no differences emerged between the cannabis-only group and any of the other groups. Results from this study suggest that youth who tend toward single-substance tobacco use may possess behavioral and/or neurobiological characteristics that differentiate them from both their substance-using and non-substance-using peers. Elsevier 2015-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4657439/ /pubmed/26070843 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.05.005 Text en © 2015 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Research
Karoly, Hollis C.
Bryan, Angela D.
Weiland, Barbara J.
Mayer, Andrew
Dodd, Andrew
Feldstein Ewing, Sarah W.
Does incentive-elicited nucleus accumbens activation differ by substance of abuse? An examination with adolescents
title Does incentive-elicited nucleus accumbens activation differ by substance of abuse? An examination with adolescents
title_full Does incentive-elicited nucleus accumbens activation differ by substance of abuse? An examination with adolescents
title_fullStr Does incentive-elicited nucleus accumbens activation differ by substance of abuse? An examination with adolescents
title_full_unstemmed Does incentive-elicited nucleus accumbens activation differ by substance of abuse? An examination with adolescents
title_short Does incentive-elicited nucleus accumbens activation differ by substance of abuse? An examination with adolescents
title_sort does incentive-elicited nucleus accumbens activation differ by substance of abuse? an examination with adolescents
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26070843
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.05.005
work_keys_str_mv AT karolyhollisc doesincentiveelicitednucleusaccumbensactivationdifferbysubstanceofabuseanexaminationwithadolescents
AT bryanangelad doesincentiveelicitednucleusaccumbensactivationdifferbysubstanceofabuseanexaminationwithadolescents
AT weilandbarbaraj doesincentiveelicitednucleusaccumbensactivationdifferbysubstanceofabuseanexaminationwithadolescents
AT mayerandrew doesincentiveelicitednucleusaccumbensactivationdifferbysubstanceofabuseanexaminationwithadolescents
AT doddandrew doesincentiveelicitednucleusaccumbensactivationdifferbysubstanceofabuseanexaminationwithadolescents
AT feldsteinewingsarahw doesincentiveelicitednucleusaccumbensactivationdifferbysubstanceofabuseanexaminationwithadolescents