Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2025
Decision-Making Signatures of Methamphetamine and Alcohol Use Disorders.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cheng Xinyu, Shen Jing, Li Junhui, Yuan Wei, Wang Duanwei, Wang Hairong, Zhang Ru-Yuan, Xia Yu-Feng, Cao Xinyu, Sha Wannian, He Shuhua, Liu Yi, Tang Junjie, Zhang Yi, Cheng Yuqi, Yuan Ti-Fei, Zhao Di
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aberrant decision making is a hallmark of substance use disorders (SUDs), often impeding recovery. While uncertainty, which comprises risk and ambiguity, is central to real-world choices, its distinct effects in SUDs remain underexplored. In this study, we disentangle risk and ambiguity to identify context-specific impairments in methamphetamine use disorder (MUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD).
METHODS: We used a Choice under Risk and Ambiguity task to examine uncertainty decision making (UDM) in 101 individuals with MUD, 56 individuals with AUD, and their respective healthy control participant (HC) groups (n = 45 and n = 75). Group-level analyses applied a modified psychometric function to estimate decision parameters, while individual-level UDM indicators were derived using custom computational methods and subjective value models.
RESULTS: Individuals with MUD exhibited heightened reward sensitivity and a stronger preference for large rewards under high uncertainty, with flexible shifts across ambiguity levels. In addition, reward sensitivity under high ambiguity was linked to symptom severity. In contrast, individuals with AUD showed no evident decision-making impairments across conditions, and like HCs, they adopted conservative strategies under ambiguity. Direct comparisons confirmed more pronounced UDM impairments in MUD than in AUD.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the heterogeneity of decision-making patterns across SUDs, validating the need for precision in therapeutic strategies.
METHODS: We used a Choice under Risk and Ambiguity task to examine uncertainty decision making (UDM) in 101 individuals with MUD, 56 individuals with AUD, and their respective healthy control participant (HC) groups (n = 45 and n = 75). Group-level analyses applied a modified psychometric function to estimate decision parameters, while individual-level UDM indicators were derived using custom computational methods and subjective value models.
RESULTS: Individuals with MUD exhibited heightened reward sensitivity and a stronger preference for large rewards under high uncertainty, with flexible shifts across ambiguity levels. In addition, reward sensitivity under high ambiguity was linked to symptom severity. In contrast, individuals with AUD showed no evident decision-making impairments across conditions, and like HCs, they adopted conservative strategies under ambiguity. Direct comparisons confirmed more pronounced UDM impairments in MUD than in AUD.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the heterogeneity of decision-making patterns across SUDs, validating the need for precision in therapeutic strategies.