Generalised inhibitory impairment to appetitive cues: From alcoholic to non-alcoholic visual stimuli

Monk, Rebecca; Qureshi, Adam; Pennington, Charlotte Rebecca; Hamlin, Iain

doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.07.038

Cited by 18 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This assertion of a 'spill over' effect is consistent with research indicating that both social and heavy drinkers exhibit automatic approach tendencies towards alcoholic and nonalcoholic appetitive cues (see Monk et al 2017;Qureshi et al 2019;Wiers et al 2009). Indeed, it has been theorised that the salience of appetitive cues may activate a general motivational state that enhances attention compared with low-incentive, non-appetitive cues (Monk et al 2017;Wadhwa et al 2008, see also Volkow et al 2008, 2013. Neuroimaging research adds some weight to this assertion, with alcohol users showing activation in posterior brain regions that have been linked with appetitive functioning when viewing both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages (Tapert et al 2003).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Similarly, they should also demonstrate lower proportional dwell time, detecting these targets with relative ease. In line with emergent research (Monk et al 2017;Qureshi et al 2019), however, it was hypothesised that if AB generalises to other appetitive stimuli, participants should exhibit faster responses and lower dwell time to both alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive targets relative to non-appetitive targets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Similarly, proportional dwell time on matching distractors was hypothesised to be lower on trials in which the target was alcoholic because these should be detected with relative ease. Conversely, as demonstrated in emergent research (see Monk et al 2017;Qureshi et al 2019), if AB spills over to other appetitive stimuli, then participants would be quicker to detect both alcoholic and nonalcoholic appetitive targets (i.e. beer and water) compared with non-appetitive targets (detergent).…”

Section: Overview Of Current Researchmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Search arrays consisted of appetitive alcohol (beer bottle), non-alcohol (water bottle) and non-appetitive (detergent) coloured stimuli displayed randomly and equally in set sizes of 24 and 36. These stimuli were validated in a previous study by Monk et al (2017) whereby participants had to identify whether the stimuli shown were appetitive or non-appetitive. Unbranded products were chosen due to concerns that brand influence could unduly affect attentional bias (see Domaradzka and Bielecki 2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is possible, however, that comparing responses between appetitive (alcohol) and non-appetitive (control) stimuli may exaggerate perceptions of the extent to which AB is exhibited towards alcoholic cues (Field and Cox 2008). To wit, Monk et al (2017) found what they referred to as a 'spill over effect' whereby participants exhibited diminished inhibitory control towards both alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive stimuli relative to non-appetitive stimuli. Similarly, Wiers et al (2009) found that heavy drinkers displayed AB towards other appetitive stimuli (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Beer? Over here! Examining attentional bias towards alcoholic and appetitive stimuli in a visual search eye-tracking task

Pennington¹,

Qureshi²,

Monk³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale: Experimental tasks that demonstrate alcohol-related attentional bias typically expose participants to single-stimulus targets (e.g., addiction stroop, visual probe, anti-saccade task), which may not correspond fully with real-world contexts where alcoholic and non-alcoholic cues simultaneously compete for attention. Moreover, alcoholic stimuli are rarely matched to other appetitive non-alcoholic stimuli. Objectives: To address these limitations by utilising a conjunction search eye-tracking task and matched stimuli to examine alcohol-related attentional bias. Methods: Thirty social drinkers (Mage = 19.87, SD = 1.74) were asked to detect whether alcoholic (beer), non-alcoholic (water) or non-appetitive (detergent) targets were present or absent amongst a visual array of matching and non-matching distractors. Both behavioural response times and eye-movement dwell time were measured. Results: Social drinkers were significantly quicker to detect alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive targets relative to non-appetitive targets in an array of matching and mismatching distractors. Similarly, proportional dwell time was lower for both alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive distractors relative to non-appetitive distractors, suggesting that appetitive targets were relatively easier to detect. Conclusions: Social drinkers may exhibit generalised attentional bias towards alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive cues. This adds to emergent research suggesting that the mechanisms driving these individual’s attention towards alcoholic cues might ‘spill over’ to other appetitive cues, possibly due to associative learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Overview Of Current Researchmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Beer? Over here! Examining attentional bias towards alcoholic and appetitive stimuli in a visual search eye-tracking task

Pennington¹,

Qureshi²,

Monk³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Beer? Over here! Examining attentional bias towards alcoholic and appetitive stimuli in a visual search eye-tracking task

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RationaleExperimental tasks that demonstrate alcohol-related attentional bias typically expose participants to single-stimulus targets (e.g. addiction Stroop, visual probe, anti-saccade task), which may not correspond fully with real-world contexts where alcoholic and non-alcoholic cues simultaneously compete for attention. Moreover, alcoholic stimuli are rarely matched to other appetitive non-alcoholic stimuli.ObjectivesTo address these limitations by utilising a conjunction search eye-tracking task and matched stimuli to examine alcohol-related attentional bias.MethodsThirty social drinkers (Mage = 19.87, SD = 1.74) were asked to detect whether alcoholic (beer), non-alcoholic (water) or non-appetitive (detergent) targets were present or absent amongst a visual array of matching and non-matching distractors. Both behavioural response times and eye-movement dwell time were measured.ResultsSocial drinkers were significantly quicker to detect alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive targets relative to non-appetitive targets in an array of matching and mismatching distractors. Similarly, proportional dwell time was lower for both alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive distractors relative to non-appetitive distractors, suggesting that appetitive targets were relatively easier to detect.ConclusionsSocial drinkers may exhibit generalised attentional bias towards alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive cues. This adds to emergent research suggesting that the mechanisms driving these individual’s attention towards alcoholic cues might ‘spill over’ to other appetitive cues, possibly due to associative learning.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00213-019-05313-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Does the smell of alcohol make it harder to resist? The impact of olfactory cues on inhibitory control and attentional bias

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background It is well known that, owing to associative processing, olfactory cues can impact memory, emotion and behaviour. Research also points to a link between the smells of particular substances and craving. Yet, to date, little research has investigated how smell may impact other cognitive processes that are known to drive alcohol consumption. Aim To assess how exposure to alcohol-related (vodka) relative to neutral (citrus) olfactory cues impacts inhibitory control and attentional bias. Method Participants took part in a go/no-go (Study 1) and Stroop task (Study 2) while wearing masks that were pre-treated with vodka or citrus oil of equivalent intensity. Study 1 results Response error rates were higher in participants in the alcohol-related (versus neutral) olfactory condition, with no interaction between olfactory and visual cue. Study 2 results Responses to alcohol-related versus neutral words were similar, while performance appeared significantly impaired among participants wearing alcohol (relative to citrus) infused masks. Conclusion The smell of alcohol may impair signal detection performance on the go/no-go and Stroop task. As inhibitory control and attentional processes are known to be associated with decisions to drink or exercise restraint, these results may have implications for our understanding of alcohol consumption and for tailoring interventions.

show abstract

Generalised inhibitory impairment to appetitive cues: From alcoholic to non-alcoholic visual stimuli

Cited by 18 publications

References 60 publications

Beer? Over here! Examining attentional bias towards alcoholic and appetitive stimuli in a visual search eye-tracking task

Beer? Over here! Examining attentional bias towards alcoholic and appetitive stimuli in a visual search eye-tracking task

Beer? Over here! Examining attentional bias towards alcoholic and appetitive stimuli in a visual search eye-tracking task

Does the smell of alcohol make it harder to resist? The impact of olfactory cues on inhibitory control and attentional bias

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About