Psychological medicine · 2026
Alcohol reinforcers attenuate goal-directed control in individuals with and without alcohol use disorder.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Bode Erik Lukas, Musial Milena Philomena Maria, Ebrahimi Claudia, Grundmann Clarissa Carolin, Krasniqi Samanda, Sebold Miriam, Endrass Tanja, Schlagenhauf Florian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Impaired control over alcohol consumption is a core feature of alcohol use disorder (AUD), yet its mechanisms remain unclear. Habit theories posit a shift from goal-directed to habitual control with repeated alcohol use, but human evidence is mixed and often lacks translational alignment with animal models. Recent accounts therefore call for paradigms assessing contingency sensitivity with disorder-relevant reinforcers.
METHODS: We adapted a free-operant contingency degradation task to compare goal-directed control when responding for a natural (juice) versus disorder-relevant reinforcer (alcohol). Eighty-one participants were tested, comprising 49 non-treatment-seeking individuals with AUD (31.22 ± 8.35 years old; 28 female) and 32 healthy control individuals (27.44 ± 6.71 years old; 22 female). We expected reduced goal-directed control in AUD, indexed by weaker response-rate and causality judgment adaptation to changed contingencies, particularly for alcohol.
RESULTS: Contrary to our hypothesis, goal-directed control was preserved in both groups, with behavioral responding and causality judgments remaining contingency-sensitive. Rather than a generalized deficit, a reinforcer-specific attenuation emerged: across groups, behavioral contingency sensitivity was selectively reduced when responding for alcohol. Explicit contingency judgments remained intact and were stronger in individuals with AUD than in healthy control individuals.
CONCLUSION: These findings do not support a generalized deficit in goal-directed control in AUD. Instead, goal-directed control appears selectively attenuated in alcohol-related contexts across groups, potentially reflecting reinforcement-history-dependent reductions in contingency-sensitive responding. Alcohol-specific reductions in goal-directed control may emerge early in alcohol use, underscoring the importance of reinforcer context.
METHODS: We adapted a free-operant contingency degradation task to compare goal-directed control when responding for a natural (juice) versus disorder-relevant reinforcer (alcohol). Eighty-one participants were tested, comprising 49 non-treatment-seeking individuals with AUD (31.22 ± 8.35 years old; 28 female) and 32 healthy control individuals (27.44 ± 6.71 years old; 22 female). We expected reduced goal-directed control in AUD, indexed by weaker response-rate and causality judgment adaptation to changed contingencies, particularly for alcohol.
RESULTS: Contrary to our hypothesis, goal-directed control was preserved in both groups, with behavioral responding and causality judgments remaining contingency-sensitive. Rather than a generalized deficit, a reinforcer-specific attenuation emerged: across groups, behavioral contingency sensitivity was selectively reduced when responding for alcohol. Explicit contingency judgments remained intact and were stronger in individuals with AUD than in healthy control individuals.
CONCLUSION: These findings do not support a generalized deficit in goal-directed control in AUD. Instead, goal-directed control appears selectively attenuated in alcohol-related contexts across groups, potentially reflecting reinforcement-history-dependent reductions in contingency-sensitive responding. Alcohol-specific reductions in goal-directed control may emerge early in alcohol use, underscoring the importance of reinforcer context.