Working memory, executive processes and the effects of alcohol on Go/No-Go learning: testing a model of behavioral regulation and impulsivity
Working memory, executive processes and the effects of alcohol on Go/No-Go learning: testing a model of behavioral regulation and impulsivity
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/pl00005492
复制
发表时间：
1999-10-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Steinmetz, JE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Finn, PR;Justus, A;Steinmetz, JE
理由：冲动与酗酒风险增加有关。酒精也可能增加冲动行为，尽管对这种影响的潜在过程知之甚少。目的：本研究验证了工作记忆（WM）和条件联想学习（CAL）的执行过程调节行为抑制的模型。受试者有酒精中毒阳性（FHP）或阴性（FHN）家族史。假设酒精会增加Go/No-Go冲动反应，但仅限于低工作记忆容量（低WM），低GAL能力或酒精中毒FHP的受试者。该模型还预测，WM和CAL调节抑制反应的应急逆转的去/不去任务。研究方法：一个去/不去学习任务与中途应急逆转管理71 FHP和78 FHN受试者清醒时，喝两个中等剂量的酒精后。清醒时还评估了WM（数字向后）和CAL（条件性空间联想任务）。结果：酒精导致更多的假警报，但仅在低WM受试者。WM和CAL调制学习抑制行为后，应急逆转，表明WM和GAL单独的调制机制。低工作记忆能力和低CAL能力的被试在应急逆转后更难学习反应抑制。FHP和FHN对酒精的反应没有差异。结论：实验结果支持我们的模型，即WM和CAL在行为抑制系统的持续调节中的调节作用。结果还表明，低容量WM的个体更容易受到酒精增加冲动行为的影响，这表明酒精降低了工作记忆调节反应抑制的能力。
Rationale: Impulsivity is associated with increased risk for alcoholism. Alcohol also may increase impulsive behavior, although little is known about the processes underlying this effect. Objectives: This study tested a model proposing that the executive processes of working memory (WM) and conditional associative learning (CAL) modulate behavioral inhibition. Subjects had either a positive (FHP) or a negative (FHN) family history of alcoholism. Hypotheses were that alcohol would increase Go/No-Go impulsive responding but only in subjects with low working memory capacity (low-WM), low-GAL ability, or FHP for alcoholism. The model also predicted that WM and CAL modulate inhibitory responses to contingency reversal on a Go/No-Go task. Methods: A Go/No-Go learning task with a midway contingency reversal was administered to 71 FHP and 78 FHN subjects when sober and after drinking one of two moderate doses of alcohol. WM (digits backward) and CAL (conditional spatial association task) were also assessed when sober. Results: Alcohol resulted in more false alarms but only in low-WM subjects. Both WM and CAL modulated learning to inhibit behavior after contingency reversal, suggesting separate modulation mechanisms for WM and GAL. Subjects with low-capacity WM and subjects with low-capacity CAL ability had more difficulty learning response inhibition after contingency reversal. FHPs and FHNs did not differ in their response to alcohol. Conclusions: The results support our model of the modulatory role of WM and CAL in the ongoing regulation of behavioral inhibitory systems. The results also suggest that individuals with low capacity WM are more susceptible to alcohol's effect of increasing impulsive behavior, suggesting that alcohol reduces the capacity of working memory to modulate response inhibition.