contemporary study: Li et al

Question 1

What were the aims?

Answer 1

-to show the PCC (reward system) is activated in a task that involves drug-related cues
-to show this activation is abnormally stronger in heroin addicts than normal controls and is therefore a brain dysfunction in addiction

Question 2

how many participants?

Answer 2

29

Question 3

how many participants in the experimental (drug) group?

Answer 3

14 male ex- heroin users

Question 4

What handedness did the experimental group all have?

Answer 4

right

Question 5

What was the age range of the experimental group?

Answer 5

25-47

Question 6

What were the requirements of the experimental group?

Answer 6

to be heroin free (negative urine test)
no current/past psychiatric illness/head injuries

Question 7

how many participants in the control group?

Answer 7

14 males

Question 8

what was the one characteristic all participants shared?

Answer 8

all smoke

Question 9

What were the requirements of the control group?

Answer 9

no history of drug dependence
no current/past psychiatric illness/head injuries

Question 10

what was the experimental design?

Answer 10

Repeated measures design

Question 11

what was the independent variable?

Answer 11

ex- heroin user group vs control group

Question 12

what were the 2 dependent variables?

Answer 12

1. the activity of reward-related areas in resting state fMRI scan
2. a self-report measure of subjective cravings

Question 13

how many scans did the participants go under?

Answer 13

3

Question 14

What happened in scan 1?

Answer 14

each pp first had a structural MRI scan to identify standard anatomical areas

Question 15

What happened in scan 2?

Answer 15

5 minute resting state fMRI scan as pp’s relaxed and fixated on a crosshair in the centre of the screen

Question 16

What happened in scan 3?

Answer 16

cue reactivity trial involving 2nd fMRI scan of 490s during which 48 images were shown to text cue reactivity- 24 were to do with heroin, each showed for 2s in a pseudorandom order with a gap of 4-12s

Question 17

what was done before and after the scans to assess cravings?

Answer 17

A self report on a 0-10 scale

Question 18

What were the results of the craving scores?

Answer 18

heroin users had higher subjective craving scores than the controls after cue- induced craving and their average score rose from 2.23 to 3.21

Question 19

What were the results of brain activity?

Answer 19

stronger functional connectivity between PCC + insula & PCC + dorsal striatum in heroin users

Question 20

What were the 3 conclusions?

Answer 20

1.Drug-related cues are powerful predictors of reward for heroin addicts
2. PCC is linked to neural circuits involved in drug cravings.
3. Positive correlation between length of dependence and strength of connectivity between PCC + DS + DI closely related to chronic heroin dependence

Question 21

How was the sample ethnocentric?
(G.r.a.v.e)

Answer 21

Chinese population and all from the same drug rehab centre (X’ian)

Question 22

How was the sample androcentric?
(G.r.a.v.e)

Answer 22

all males

Question 23

How was the sample size a weakness?
(G.r.a.v.e)

Answer 23

small sample of 14 ex heroin users increases chance of making a type 1 error

Question 24

How was the method standardised?
(g.R.a.v.e)

Answer 24

each pp saw the same 48 images for 2s each and fMRI scan followed the same protocol of 5 minutes

Question 25

How were variables controlled? (g.R.a.v.e)

Answer 25

took place in a laboratory setting where variables can be carefully measured and controlled. fMRI scanning is highly complex with sophisticated software

Question 26

How was the study replicable? (g.R.a.v.e)

Answer 26

scientific methods and objective measurements

Question 27

How can the results be useful in addiction recovery? (g.r.A.v.e)

Answer 27

offers help to rehabilitation centres to avoid stimuli

Question 28

How were the results applied to diagnosing brain damage in heroin addicts? (g.r.A.v.e)

Answer 28

found that abnormal function was associated with the extent of their heroin use- biological indicator of brain damage in heroin users which could be another step in treatment

Question 29

Why was there low ecological validity? (g.r.a.V.e)

Answer 29

Lab setting + could be other variables influencing the results

Question 30

How did the confounding variable nicotine potentially compromise the results? (g.r.a.V.e)

Answer 30

all pp's smoked and it ignores potential interaction between nicotine and heroine which may mean researchers weren't measuring effects of heroin alone.

Question 31

How did the Matched pairs design increase the validity? (g.r.a.V.e)

Answer 31

controls were closely matched- with age, height, build, education etc which ensures individual differences don't effect results

Question 32

How was protection from harm compromised? (g.r.a.v.E)

Answer 32

psychological harm in showing ex-addicts heroin related images which could encourage a relapse