Premium
Inhibitory‐control event‐related potentials correlate with individual differences in alcohol use
Author(s) -
O'Halloran Laura,
RuedaDelgado Laura M.,
Jollans Lee,
Cao Zhipeng,
Boyle Rory,
Vaughan Christina,
Coey Phillip,
Whelan Robert
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
addiction biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.445
H-Index - 78
eISSN - 1369-1600
pISSN - 1355-6215
DOI - 10.1111/adb.12729
Subject(s) - impulsivity , alcohol use disorders identification test , stroop effect , psychology , event related potential , electroencephalography , alcohol , stop signal , inhibitory control , developmental psychology , audiology , cognition , alcohol consumption , psychiatry , medicine , computer science , biology , telecommunications , biochemistry , latency (audio)
Impulsivity is a multidimensional construct that is related to different aspects of alcohol use, abuse, and dependence. Inhibitory control, one facet of impulsivity, can be assayed using the stop‐signal task (SST) and quantified behaviorally via the stop‐signal reaction time (SSRT) and electrophysiologically using event‐related potentials (ERPs). Research on the relationship between alcohol use and SSRTs, and between alcohol use and inhibitory‐control ERPs, is mixed. Here, adult alcohol users (n = 79), with a wide range of scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), completed the SST under electroencephalography (EEG) (70% of participants had AUDIT total scores greater than or equal to 8). Other measures, including demographic, self‐report, and task‐based measures of impulsivity, personality, and psychological factors, were also recorded. A machine‐learning method with penalized linear regression was used to correlate individual differences in alcohol use with impulsivity measures. Four separate models were tested, with out‐of‐sample validation used to quantify performance. ERPs alone statistically predicted alcohol use (cross‐validated r = 0.28), with both early and late ERP components contributing to the model (larger N2, but smaller P3, amplitude). Behavioral data from a wide range of impulsivity measures were also associated with alcohol use ( r = 0.37). SSRT was a relatively weak statistical predictor, whereas the Stroop interference effect was relatively strong. The addition of nonimpulsivity behavioral measures did not improve the correlation ( r = 0.34) and was similar when ERPs were combined with non‐ERP data ( r = 0.29). These findings show that inhibitory control ERPs are robustly correlated individual differences in alcohol use.