Alkol Kullanım Bozukluğu Olan ve Olmayan Kişilerde Alkol Dikkat Yanlılığının Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, aşermenin altında yatan örtük bilişsel süreçleri nokta arama testi kullanarak araştırmak ve dikkat yanlılığının aşerme ile olan ilişkisine dair kanıtlar sunmaktır. Çalışmada sağlıklı kişiler ve alkol kullanım bozukluğu tanısı almış kişiler arasında alkolle ilintili uyaranlara ilişkin dikkat yanlılığının varlığı ve bu yanlılık ile alkol aşerme seviyesi arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Öncelikle çalışmaya katılmayı kabul eden gönüllü katılımcılar alkol kullanım bozukluğu olan ve olmayan kişiler olarak iki gruba ayrılmıştır. Katılımcıların aşerme seviyesini belirlemek amaçlı her iki gruba da alkol aşerme ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Sonrasında kişilerin alkol dikkat yanlılığı nokta arama testi aracılığı ile ölçülmüştür. Bu testte alkolle ilişkili ve ilişkisiz resimler bir arada 500 ms süre boyunca sunulmuştur. Ardından işaret (*, asteriks) belirmiştir. Gönüllülerden gördükleri işaretin ne tarafta olduğunu 1500 ms içinde belirlemeleri istenmiştir. Test boyunca katılımcıların göreve verdikleri tepki süreleri ve doğru- yanlış cevap sayıları kaydedilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre alkol kullanım bozukluğu olan kişiler alkolle ilişkili resimlerin eşleştiği denemelerde sağlıklı kişilere nazaran daha hızlı cevap verdiği, alkolle ilişkisiz olan uyaranların bulunduğu denemelerde ise farklılaşma olmadığı bulunmuştur. Bu bulgular, alkol kullanım bozukluğu olan kişilerde sağlıklı kişilere nazaran alkol içerikli uyaranlara ilişkin bir dikkat yanlılığı olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu yönüyle bağımlılıkta alkol dikkat yanlılığının incelenmesi alkol kullanımının devam riskini ve aşerme seviyesini belirlemede yordayıcı bir etmen olarak kullanılabilirliğine ilişkin bilgi vermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dikkat yanlılığı
• alkol
• nokta arama testi
• aşerme

Comparison of Alcohol Attentional Bias and Alcohol Craving Among Alcohol Abusers and Non-Abusers

Abstract

The aim of this research is to investigate implicit cognitive process underlying alcohol craving and relationship between alcohol attentional bias and alcohol craving by using visual probe task. Current study examined whether alcohol abusers show attentional bias toward alcohol related task compared with non- abusers and causal relationship between alcohol attentional bias and alcohol craving. Firstly, participants were divided two groups (non abusers- abusers) and they were completed alcohol craving scale to determinate their alcohol craving level. Then, participants alcohol attentional bias was investigated using the visual probe task. In this task, images (alcohol-related and neutral) were presented for 500 ms on a computer screen. After that, probe (*, asterisk) was presented. Participants were asked to decide the place of the probe place by using keyboard keys within 1500 ms. Participants reaction time and number of correct and incorrect answers during the test. According to results, alcohol abuser group’s reaction times were faster than non-abuser when probe was associated with alcohol picture but not in neutral trials. These results suggested that, alcohol abusers showed significantly greater attentional bias to alcohol related pictures than non- abusers. From this point, investigation of alcohol attentional bias might be important component of alcohol dependence in terms of the alcohol relapse risk and determination of the alcohol craving.

Keywords

• Attentional bias
• alcohol
• visual probe task
• craving

Kaynakça

1. Bradley B, Field M, Mogg K, De Houwer J (2004) Attentional and evaluative biases for smoking cues in nicotine dependence: component processes of biases in visual orienting. Behavioral Pharmacology,15(1): 29–36.
2. Bradley BP, Field M, Healy H, Mogg K (2008) Do the affective properties of smoking-related cues influence attentional and approach biases in cigarette smokers?. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22(7): 737–745.
3. Copersino ML, Serper MR, Vadhan N, Goldberg BR, Richarme D, Chou JCY et al. (2004) Cocaine craving and attentional bias in cocaine-dependent schizophrenic patients. Psychiatry Res, 128(3): 209–218.
4. Cox WM, Yeates GN, Regan CM (1999) Effects of alcohol cues on cognitive processing in heavy and light drinkers. Drug Alcohol Dependence, 55(1-2): 85–89.
5. Cox WM, Hogan LM, Kristian MR, Race JH (2002) Alcohol attentional bias as a predictor of alcohol abusers’ treatment outcome. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68(3): 237–243.
6. Cox WM, Brown MA, Rowlands LJ (2003) The effects of alcohol cue exposure on non-dependent drinkers’ attentional bias for alcohol-related stimuli. Alcohol Alcohol,38(1): 45–49.
7. Cox WM, Fadardi JS, Pothos E.M (2006) The addiction Stroop test: theoretical considerations and procedural recommendations. Psychol. Bull,132(3): 443-76.
8. Cousijn J, Goudriaan AE, Wiers RW (2011) Reaching out towards cannabis: Approach-bias in heavy cannabis users predicts changes in cannabis use. Erratum in: Addiction, 106(9): 1667-1674.

9. Duka T, Townshend JM (2004) The priming effect of alcohol pre-load on attentional bias to alcohol-related stimuli. Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 176(3-4): 353–362.
10. Ehrman RN, Robbins SJ, Bromwell, MA, Lankford ME, Monterosso JR, O’Brien CP (2002) Comparing attentional bias to smoking cues in current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers using a dot-probe task. Drug Alcohol Dependence, 67(2): 185–191.
11. Evren C, Flannery B, Çelik R, Durkaya M, Dalbudak E (2009) Penn Alkol Aşerme Ölçeği (PAAÖ) Türkçe şeklinin yatarak tedavi gören erkek alkol bağımlısı hastalarda geçerliği ve güvenirliği. Bağımlılık Dergisi, 9: 128-34.
12. Flannery BA, Volpicelli JR, Pettinati HM (1999) Psychometric properties of the Penn alcohol craving scale. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 23(8): 1289- 1295.
13. Field M, Mogg K, Bradley BP (2004) Cognitive bias and drug craving in recreational cannabis users. Drug Alcohol Dependence, 74(3): 105–111.
14. Field M, Eastwood B (2005) Experimental manipulation of attentional bias increases the motivation to drink alcohol. Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 183(3): 350–357.
15. Field M, Eastwood B, Bradley BP, Mogg K. Selective processing of cannabis cues in regular cannabis users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2006; 85(1): 75–82.
16. Field M, Rush M, Cole J, Goudie A (2008) The smoking Stroop and delay discounting in smokers: effects of environmental smoking cues. J. Psychopharmacoly, 21(6): 603–10.
17. Field M, Cox WM (2008) Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: a review of its development, causes, and consequences. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 97(1-2): 1–20.
18. Franken IHA., Kroon LY, Hendriks VM (2000) Influence of individual differences in craving and obsessive cocaine thoughts on attentional processes in cocaine abuse patients. Addict. Behavior, 25(1): 99–102.
19. Havermans RC, Giesen JCAH, Houben K, Jansen A (2001) Weight, gender, and snack appeal. Eating Behaviors, 12(2): 126–430.
20. Klinger E (1996) Emotional influences on cognitive processing, with implications for theories of both. John A Bargh ve Peter M. Gollwitzer (Ed.), The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior, 168–189.
21. Lubman DI, Peters LA, Mogg K, Bradley, BP, Deakin JFW (2000) Attentional bias for drug cues in opiate dependence. Psychol. Med., 30(1): 69–75.
22. Macleod C, Mathews A, Tata P (1986) Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95(1): 15-20.
23. MacLeod C, Mathews A (1988) Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat. Q. J. Exp. Psychol., 40(4): 653-670.
24. Marissen MA., Franken IH, Waters AJ, Blanken P, van den Brink W, Hendriks VM (2006) Attentional bias predicts heroin relapse following treatment. Addiction, 101(9): 1306-1312.
25. Mogg K, Bradley BP (2002) Selective processing of smoking-related cues in smokers: manipulation of deprivation level and comparison of three measures of processing bias. J. Psychopharmacoly,16(4): 385–392.
26. Mogg K, Bradley BP, Field M, De Houwer J (2003) Eye movements to smoking-related pictures in smokers: relationship between attentional biases and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus valence. Addiction, 98(6): 825–836.
27. Mogg K, Field M, Bradley BP (2005) Attentional and approach biases for smoking cues in smokers: an investigation of competing theoretical views of addiction. Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 180(2): 333–341.
28. Nederkoorn C, Houben K, Hofmann W, Roefs A, Jansen A (2010) Control yourself or just eat what you like? Weight gain over a year is predicted by an interactive effect of response inhibition and implicit preference for snack foods. Health Psychology, 29(4): 389-393.
29. Palfai TP, Ostafin BD (2003) Alcohol-related motivational tendencies in hazardous drinkers: Assessing implicit response tendencies using the modified IAT. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(10): 1149- 11462.
30. Rosse RB, Miller MW, Hess AL, Alim TN, Deutsch SI (1993) Measures of visual scanning as a predictor of cocaine cravings and urges. Biol. Psychiatry, 33(7): 554–556.
31. Saatçioğlu Ö, Evren C, Çakmak D (2002) Alkol Kullanım Bozuklukları Tanıma Testi›nin geçerliği ve güvenirliği. Türkiyede Psikiyatri, 4(2-3):107-113.
32. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M (1993) Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption II. Addiction, 88: 791–804.
33. Sayette MA, Monti PM, Rohsenow DJ, Gulliver SB, Colby SM, Sirota AD et al. (1994) The effects of cue exposure on reaction time in male alcoholics. J. Stud. Alcohol, 55(5): 629–633.
34. Schoenmakers T, Wiers RW, Field M (2008) Effects of a low dose of alcohol on cognitive biases and craving in heavy drinkers. Psychopharmacology,197(1): 169–178.
35. Schulze D, Jones BT (1999) The effects of alcohol cues and an alcohol priming dose on a multi-factorial measure of subjective cue reactivity in social drinkers. Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 145(4): 452–454.
36. Stacy AW, Wiers RW (2010) Implicit cognition and addiction: A tool for explaining paradoxical behavior. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6: 551–575.
37. Starzomska M (2017) Applications of the dot probe task in attentional bias research in eating disorders: A review. Psicológica, 38(2): 283-346.
38. Veenstra EM, de Jong PJ (2011) Reduced automatic motivational orientation towards food in restricting anorexia nervosa. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120(3): 708–718.
39. Waters AJ, Shiffman S, Bradle, BP, Mogg K (2003) Attentional shifts to smoking cues in smokers. Addiction, 98(10): 1407- 1409.
40. Watson P, de Wit S, Cousijn J, Hommel B, Wiers RW (2013) Motivational mechanisms underlying the approach bias to cigarettes. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 4(3): 250–262.
41. Wertz JM, Sayette MA (2001) Effects of smoking opportunity on attentional bias in smokers. Psychol. Addict. Behav., 15(3): 268–227.
42. Wiers RW, Rinck M, Dictus M, van den Wildenberg E (2009) Relatively strong automatic appetitive action-tendencies in male carriers of the OPRM1 G-allele. Genes, Brain & Behavior, 8(1):101–106.
43. Wiers RW, Rinck M, Kordts R, Houben K, Strack F (2010) Retraining automatic action-tendencies to approach alcohol in hazardous drinkers. Addiction,105(2): 279-287.
44. Wiers CE, Kühn S, Javadi AH, Korucuoglu O, Wiers RW, Walter H et al. (2013) Automatic approach bias towards smoking cues is present in smokers but not in ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 229(1): 187-197.
45. Zack M, Belsito L, Scher R, Eissenberg T, Corrigall WA (2001) Effects of abstinence and smoking on information processing in adolescent smokers. Psychopharmacology, 153(2): 249–257.