Skip to main content

Compulsive alcohol consumption wired differently in the brain

Is compulsive alcohol consumption wired differently in the brain?  Social drinking can be defined by the level of choice and the nature of the choice to drink alcohol.    Social drinkers drink with others.  It involves parts of the brain that underpin habits, but allow us to make free choices.

But what about compulsive drinking?  Are different areas of the brain activated in compulsive drinkers?  The answer it seems is yes.

Visual alcohol cues for heavy drinkers activate an area of the brain called the dorsal striatum.  In social drinkers it is the ventral striatum that is activated.  This suggests different brain circuits are at work in heavy, compulsive alcohol drinkers.

Heavy alcohol drinkers attempt to acquire alcohol despite the threat of a negative consequence more so than light drinkers, a study published in the journal Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging has found, and this behaviour is associated with unique activation of brain circuitry in heavy drinkers.

"Compulsivity circuit"

The findings provide evidence for a “compulsivity circuit” that may drive alcohol-seeking behaviour that is resistant to negative consequences.

First author Dr Erica Grodin and her colleagues designed a task to assess compulsive behaviour of heavy and light drinkers. In contrast to habits—which drive behaviour automatically even when it’s no longer rewarding—compulsive behaviour continues despite negative consequences.

In the task, participants could risk receiving a painful electric shock to earn points for alcohol or food.

Heavy drinkers chose alcohol reward despite risks

Heavy drinkers tried to earn alcohol despite the risk for shock, whereas light drinkers tended to not take the risk. Both groups were willing to seek alcohol and food rewards when there was no threat of a shock.

Previous studies have used animal models.  As lead author Erica Grodin tells us
This study is important because it is the first study to investigate compulsive alcohol seeking in a heavy drinking population. 

Brain function and compulsivity 

Prefrontal cortical regions and the insula are thought to play a role in compulsive behaviour because of their role in decision-making under conflict.  The current study confirmed these regions are involved in compulsive drinking. 

Brain imaging conducted during the task revealed that heavy drinkers had more activity in brain regions associated with decision-making under conflict—the anterior insula and prefrontal cortex—and with habit and reward—the striatum. Imaging also revealed functional connections between two brain regions that were stronger in people with stronger compulsivity.
This study highlights the complex rewiring that takes place in the heavy drinker's brain. Circuitry associated with conflict, risk and aversion become associated with those that process rewarding experiences, and this is associated with increased risky choice behaviour when alcohol is a possible reward.

Subscribe to The Thin End

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha