Pushing or Pulling Your "Poison": Clinical Correlates of Alcohol Approach and Avoidance Bias Among Inpatients Undergoing Alcohol Withdrawal Treatment

Web-Based Cognitive Bias Modification Program for Young People With Social Anxiety and Hazardous Alcohol Use: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Efficacy Study

BACKGROUND

Interpretation bias modification (IBM) and approach bias modification (ApBM) cognitive retraining interventions can be efficacious adjunctive treatments for improving social anxiety and alcohol use problems. However, previous trials have not examined the combination of these interventions in a young, comorbid sample.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a web-based IBM+ApBM program for young adults with social anxiety and hazardous alcohol use ("Re-Train Your Brain") when delivered in conjunction with treatment as usual (TAU).

METHODS

The study involved a 3-arm randomized controlled pilot trial in which treatment-seeking young adults (aged 18-30 y) with co-occurring social anxiety and hazardous alcohol use were randomized to receive (1) the "integrated" Re-Train Your Brain program, where each session included both IBM and ApBM (50:50 ratio), plus TAU (35/100, 35%); (2) the "alternating" Re-Train Your Brain program, where each session focused on IBM or ApBM in an alternating pattern, plus TAU (32/100, 32%); or (3) TAU only (33/100, 33%). Primary outcomes included feasibility and acceptability, and secondary efficacy outcomes included changes in cognitive biases, social anxiety symptoms, and alcohol use. Assessments were conducted at baseline, after the intervention period (6 weeks after baseline), and 12 weeks after baseline.

RESULTS

Both Re-Train Your Brain program formats were feasible and acceptable for young adults. When coupled with TAU, both integrated and alternating programs resulted in greater self-reported improvements than TAU only in anxiety interpretation biases (at the 6-week follow-up; Cohen d=0.80 and Cohen d=0.89) and comorbid interpretation biases (at the 12-week follow-up; Cohen d=1.53 and Cohen d=1.67). In addition, the alternating group reported larger improvements over the control group in generalized social anxiety symptoms (at the 12-week follow-up; Cohen d=0.83) and alcohol cravings (at the 6-week follow-up; Cohen d=0.81). There were null effects on all other variables and no differences between the intervention groups in efficacy outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Should these findings be replicated in a larger randomized controlled trial, Re-Train Your Brain has the potential to be a scalable, low-cost, and non-labor-intensive adjunct intervention for targeting interpretation and comorbidity biases as well as generalized anxiety and alcohol-related outcomes in the real world.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001273976; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=364131.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/28667.

Test-retest reliability of a smartphone-based approach-avoidance task: Effects of retest period, stimulus type, and demographics

The approach-avoidance task (AAT) is an implicit task that measures people's behavioral tendencies to approach or avoid stimuli in the environment. In recent years, it has been used successfully to help explain a variety of health problems (e.g., addictions and phobias). Unfortunately, more recent AAT studies have failed to replicate earlier promising findings. One explanation for these replication failures could be that the AAT does not reliably measure approach-avoidance tendencies. Here, we first review existing literature on the reliability of various versions of the AAT. Next, we examine the AAT's reliability in a large and diverse sample (N = 1077; 248 of whom completed all sessions). Using a smartphone-based, mobile AAT, we measured participants' approach-avoidance tendencies eight times over a period of seven months (one measurement per month) in two distinct stimulus sets (happy/sad expressions and disgusting/neutral stimuli). The mobile AAT's split-half reliability was adequate for face stimuli (r = .85), but low for disgust stimuli (r = .72). Its test-retest reliability based on a single measurement was poor for either stimulus set (all ICC1s < .3). Its test-retest reliability based on the average of all eight measurements was moderately good for face stimuli (ICCk = .73), but low for disgust stimuli (ICCk = .5). Results suggest that single-measurement AATs could be influenced by unexplained temporal fluctuations of approach-avoidance tendencies. These fluctuations could be examined in future studies. Until then, this work suggests that future research using the AAT should rely on multiple rather than single measurements.

Approach-Bias Retraining and Other Training Interventions as Add-On in the Treatment of AUD Patients

In the past two decades, a variety of cognitive training interventions have been developed to help people overcome their addictive behaviors. Conceptually, it is important to distinguish between programs in which reactions to addiction-relevant cues are trained (varieties of cognitive bias modification, CBM) and programs in which general abilities are trained such as working memory or mindfulness. CBM was first developed to study the hypothesized causal role in mental disorders: by directly manipulating the bias, it was investigated to what extent this influenced disorder-relevant behavior. In these proof-of-principle studies, the bias was temporarily modified in volunteers, either temporarily increased or decreased, with corresponding effects on behavior (e.g., beer consumption), in case the bias was successfully manipulated. In subsequent clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs), training (away from the substance vs. sham training) was added to clinical treatment. These studies have demonstrated that CBM, as added to treatment, reduces relapse with a small effect of about 10% (similar effect size as for medication, with the strongest evidence for approach-bias modification). This has not been found for general ability training (e.g., working memory training), although effects on other psychological functions have been found (e.g., impulsivity). Mindfulness also has been found to help people overcome addictions, and different from CBM, also as stand-alone intervention. Research on (neuro-)cognitive mechanisms underlying approach-bias modification has pointed to a new perspective in which automatic inferences rather than associations are influenced by training, which has led to the development of a new variety of training: ABC training.

Large-scale neural network computations and multivariate representations during approach-avoidance conflict decision-making

Many real-world situations require navigating decisions for both reward and threat. While there has been significant progress in understanding mechanisms of decision-making and mediating neurocircuitry separately for reward and threat, there is limited understanding of situations where reward and threat contingencies compete to create approach-avoidance conflict (AAC). Here, we leverage computational learning models, independent component analysis (ICA), and multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) approaches to understand decision-making during a novel task that embeds concurrent reward and threat learning and manipulates congruency between reward and threat probabilities. Computational modeling supported a modified reinforcement learning model where participants integrated reward and threat value into a combined total value according to an individually varying policy parameter, which was highly predictive of decisions to approach reward vs avoid threat during trials where the highest reward option was also the highest threat option (i.e., approach-avoidance conflict). ICA analyses demonstrated unique roles for salience, frontoparietal, medial prefrontal, and inferior frontal networks in differential encoding of reward vs threat prediction error and value signals. The left frontoparietal network uniquely encoded degree of conflict between reward and threat value at the time of choice. MVPA demonstrated that delivery of reward and threat could accurately be decoded within salience and inferior frontal networks, respectively, and that decisions to approach reward vs avoid threat were predicted by the relative degree to which these reward vs threat representations were active at the time of choice. This latter result suggests that navigating AAC decisions involves generating mental representations for possible decision outcomes, and relative activation of these representations may bias subsequent decision-making towards approaching reward or avoiding threat accordingly.