ABSTRACT
Background Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a major public health risk. Yet, our understanding of the mechanisms that maintain these disorders remains incomplete. In a recent computational modeling study, we found initial evidence that SUDs are associated with slower learning rates from negative outcomes and less value-sensitive choice (low “action precision”), which could help explain continued substance use despite harmful consequences.
Methods Here we aimed to replicate and extend these results in a pre-registered study with a new sample of 168 individuals with SUDs and 99 healthy comparisons (HCs). We performed the same computational modeling and group comparisons as in our prior report (doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108208) to confirm previously observed effects. After completing all pre-registered replication analyses, we then combined the previous and current datasets (N = 468) to assess whether differences were transdiagnostic or driven by specific disorders.
Results Replicating prior results, SUDs showed slower learning rates for negative outcomes in both Bayesian and frequentist analyses (η2=.02). Previously observed differences in action precision were not confirmed. Logistic regressions including all computational parameters as predictors in the combined datasets could differentiate several specific disorders from HCs, but could not differentiate most disorders from each other.
Conclusions These results provide robust evidence that individuals with SUDs have more difficulty adjusting behavior in the face of negative outcomes than HCs. They also suggest this effect is common across several different SUDs. Future research should examine its neural basis and whether learning rates could represent a new treatment target or moderator of treatment outcome.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the NIGMS (P20 GM121312; PI:MPP) and the Laureate Institute for Brain Research.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Western IRB gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Funding: This work was funded by the NIGMS (P20 GM121312; PI:MPP) and the Laureate Institute for Brain Research.
Conflict of Interest: None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors