Skip to main content Accessibility help

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.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 10 - Neurobiology of Substance Addictions

  • from Part III - Levels of Analysis and Etiology
  • Edited by Steve Sussman, University of Southern California
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Substance and Behavioral Addictions
    Published online:
    13 July 2020
    Print publication:
    06 August 2020, pp 121-135

  • Summary

    Earlier neurobiological models of substance addictions proposed that addiction is the product of an imbalance between two separate, but interacting, neural systems: (1) an impulsive and amygdala-striatum dependent system that promotes automatic and habitual behaviors, and (2) a “reflective” prefrontal cortex dependent system for decision-making, forecasting the future consequences of a behavior, and inhibitory control. These impulsive and reflective systems are analogous to Daniel Kahneman’s model of System I and System II thinking, or the Behavioral Activation System (BAS) and the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS). Here, the reflective system controls the impulsive system through several distinct mechanisms that regulate impulses. However, this control is not absolute – hyperactivity within the impulsive system can override the reflective system. Most prior research has focused either on the impulsive system (especially the ventral striatum and its mesolimbic dopamine projections) as a mechanism promoting the motivation and drive to seek drugs, or on the reflective system (prefrontal cortex) as a mechanism for decision-making and impulse control. More recent evidence suggests that a largely overlooked structure, the insula, also plays a key role in maintaining addiction (craving). Hence, a triadic model of addiction incorporates these three systems that are associated with archetypal behaviors in addiction: craving, motivation to procure the drug, poor decision-making, lack of impulse control, and deficits in self-regulation.

  • Deficit in rewarding mechanisms and prefrontal left/right cortical effect in vulnerability for internet addiction

  • Michela Balconi, Roberta Finocchiaro
  • Journal:
    Acta Neuropsychiatrica / Volume 28 / Issue 5 / October 2016
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    09 March 2016, pp. 272-285
  • Objective

    The present research explored the cortical correlates of rewarding mechanisms and cortical ‘unbalance’ effect in internet addiction (IA) vulnerability.

    Methods

    Internet Addiction Inventory (IAT) and personality trait (Behavioural Inhibition System, BIS; Behavioural Activation System, BAS) were applied to 28 subjects. Electroencephalographic (EEG, alpha frequency band) and response times (RTs) were registered during a Go-NoGo task execution in response to different online stimuli: gambling videos, videogames or neutral stimuli. Higher-IAT (more than 50 score, with moderate or severe internet addiction) and lower-IAT (<50 score, with no internet addiction).

    Results

    Alpha band and RTs were affected by IAT, with significant bias (reduced RTs) for high-IAT in response to gambling videos and videogames; and by BAS, BAS-Reward subscale (BAS-R), since not only higher-IAT, but also BAS and BAS-R values determined an increasing of left prefrontal cortex (PFC) activity (alpha reduction) in response to videogames and gambling stimuli for both Go and NoGo conditions, in addition to decreased RTs for these stimuli categories.

    Conclusion

    The increased PFC responsiveness and the lateralisation (left PFC hemisphere) effect in NoGo condition was explained on the basis of a ‘rewarding bias’ towards more rewarding cues and a deficit in inhibitory control in higher-IAT and higher-BAS subjects. In contrast lower-IAT and lower-BAS predicted a decreased PFC response and increased RTs for NoGo (inhibitory mechanism). These results may support the significance of personality (BAS) and IAT measures for explaining future internet addiction behaviour based on this observed ‘vulnerability’.