Event-related brain potentials in intoxicated and detoxified alcoholics during visuospatial learning

Abstract

Event-related potentials and visuospatial learning performance were examined to understand the effects of chronic alcohol use on complex information processing. A total of 18 alcoholic male in-patients in an alcohol treatment program served as participants. Nine persons were seen at time of admission to the program while intoxicated (mean BAC = 18.0 mg/dl). The second group of nine persons was seen detoxified after 4 weeks in the treatment program. Learning consisted of a paired-associate paradigm requiring participants to learn the distinct spatial positions of six, randomly presented "nonsense" shapes. The visuospatial learning performance of the intoxicated alcoholics was superior to that of the detoxified alcoholics. Evaluation of event-related potentials during the visuospatial learning task indicated that while both groups displayed greater right hemisphere amplitudes of P3, P2, N1, and N2-P3 components, the amplitudes of the latter three components were significantly greater in the intoxicated alcoholics. The overall results suggest that compared to the intoxicated alcoholic, the detoxified alcoholic may suffer a disruption in attentional mechanisms related to visuospatial information processing, providing support for a theory that alcohol ingestion serves to balance information processing in the chronic alcoholic.

Spatial learning deficits in adolescent children of alcoholics.

“…Such findings have led Cloninger (1987) to include vigilance behavior with neuroelectric neurochemical patterns in distinguishing between Type I and Type II alcoholics. Autonomic measures sensitive to information processing reveal that alcoholics and their offspring also show reduced orienting to visuospatial stimuli during tasks identical to that of the present study (Schandler, Cohen, & Antick, 1992; Schandler, Cohen, & McArthur, 1988; Schandler, Cohen, McArthur, Brannock, et al, 1988).…”

“…As learning progressed in these persons, they did not show the typical pattern of increased correct responses and decreased errors and no responses. More significant, the magnitude and patterns of visuospatial deficits displayed by these COAs were very similar to those displayed in our previous studies of detoxified alcoholics (Schandler, Cohen, & McArthur, 1988).…”

“…These groups all displayed significantly poorer learning than their opposite conditions. The .42 ratio of correct to total responses shown by the adolescent COAs is similar to the .52 ratio displayed by 3-week detoxified alcoholics (Schandler, Cohen, & McArthur, 1988), and it is virtually identical to the .42 ratio of young COAs (Schandler, Brannock, et al, 1988) and the .43 ratio displayed by adult COAs (Schandler et al, 1991). Furthermore, the correct responses produced by detoxified alcoholics and young and adult COAs were associated with greater latencies.…”

“…With respect to the central nervous system, there is substantial evidence that alcoholics and COAs show similar diminutions of neuroelectric responses during the intake of simple sensory information (see Begleiter & Porjesz, 1990, for a review). We have found this effect during the presentation of more complex spatial stimuli to alcoholics and adult COAs (Schandler, Cohen, & McArthur, 1988; Schandler, Cohen, McArthur, Brannock, et al, 1988). Such findings have led Cloninger (1987) to include vigilance behavior with neuroelectric neurochemical patterns in distinguishing between Type I and Type II alcoholics.…”

“…As compared with verbal information-processing deficits, visuospatial deficits, if they recover, recover more slowly in the abstinent alcoholic (Adams, Grant, & Reed, 1980; Ellenberg, Rosenbaum, Goldman, & Whitman, 1980; Fabian & Parsons, 1983; Grant, Adams, & Reed, 1979; Leber, Jenkins, & Parsons, 1981). However, there is recent evidence that indicates that intoxicated alcoholics display visuospatial processing significantly superior to their performance when detoxified (Schandler, Cohen, & McArthur, 1988; Schandler, Cohen, McArthur, Naliboff, & Hassel, 1988).…”