We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Response inhibition − or the ability to withhold a suboptimal response − relies on the efficacy of fronto-striatal networks, and is impaired in neuropsychiatric disorders including addiction. Cortical paired associative stimulation (cPAS) is a form of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) which can strengthen neuronal connections via spike-timing-dependent plasticity mechanisms. Here, we used cPAS targeting the fronto-striatal inhibitory network to modulate performance on a response inhibition measure in chronic alcohol use.
Methods
Fifty-five participants (20 patients with a formal alcohol use disorder (AUD) diagnosis (26–74 years, 6[30%] females) and 20 matched healthy controls (HCs) (27–73 years, 6[30%] females) within a larger sample of 35 HCs (23–84 years, 11[31.4%] females) underwent two randomized sessions of cPAS 1-week apart: right inferior frontal cortex stimulation preceding right presupplementary motor area stimulation by either 4 ms (excitation condition) or 100 ms (control condition), and were subsequently administered the Stop Signal Task (SST) in both sessions.
Results
HCs showed decreased stop signal reaction time in the excitation condition (t(19) = −3.01, p = 0.007, [CIs]:−35.6 to −6.42); this facilitatory effect was not observed for AUD (F(1,31) = 9.57, p = 0.004, CIs: −68.64 to −14.11). Individually, rates of SST improvement were substantially higher for healthy (72%) relative to AUD (13.6%) groups (OR: 2.33, p = 0.006, CIs:−3.34 to −0.55).
Conclusion
In line with previous findings, cPAS improved response inhibition in healthy adults by strengthening the fronto-striatal network through putative long-term potentiation-like plasticity mechanisms. Furthermore, we identified a possible marker of impaired cortical excitability, and, thus, diminished capacity for cPAS-induced neuroplasticity in AUD with direct implications to a disorder-relevant cognitive process.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.