Li et al 2013 - Contemporary Study Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What were the aims of Li et al?

A

To investigate whether chronic heroin use is associated with craving related changes in the functional connectivity of the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) of heroin addicts

To see if there was a relationship between dysfunctional connectivity of the PCC and heroin dependence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Describe the sample of Li et al

A

14 male ppts
All aged between 18 and 50

All had been addicted to heroin for an average of 89.3 months
Heroin addiction was diagnosed with DSM IV
All addicts came from a drug rehab centre in China

All addicts were in the detoxification stage, measured through heroin in urine
All were clean from heroin
All not using any other illicit drug
All had to be right-handed

Excluded if they had any past/current psychiatric illness, neurological signs or disease, head trauma, cardiovascular or endocrine disease, claustrophobia, any magnetic objects in their body or any illness that would prevent an MRI scan

15 control ppts who were healthy and had no drug dependency (other than nicotine), head injuries or psychiatric disorders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Describe the procedure of Li et al

A

Each ppts had 2 scans: one in resting and one during the heroin cue reactivity test

During the first scan, they were told to focus on the crosshair, relax and not move

After a practice run of 10 seconds, ppts saw 24 heroin-related pictures and 24 non-heroin-related pictures for 2 seconds with the cross hair for 4-12 seconds between each picture.

Craving was assessed before and after the pictures were shown using a visual analogue scale
eg 1 = no craving and 10 = a lot of craving

Drug-related activity scans vs neutral scans were compared for each group
Differences in nicotine dependence were checked using a Wilcoxon rank sum test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Describe the results of Li et al

A

Heroin addicts’ subject craving increased by 0.98 before and after the cue-induced craving task.

Heroin addicts had significantly higher subject cravings after the task than non-addicts.

Heroin addicts had more activity in the bilateral PCC when looking at the heron cues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Describe the conclusions of Li et al

A

The connectivity of the PCC and duration of heroin were positively correlated, suggesting these areas of the brain are associated with heroin dependence and are involved in craving.
However, we can not say heroin use causes changes within the brain as they didn’t look at this in this study

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Evaluate the generalisability of Li et al

A

Small sample size - 29 ppts

Androcentric - only male ppts

Ethnocentric - all from rehab centre in China
China is quite authoritarian, so ppts may not be truthful about craving as they may feel that’s what they should say in a rehab centre

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Evaluate the reliability of Li et al

A

Standardised procedure - all saw 48 pictures and cross hair for the same amount of time etc

Controls - excluded things that could have affected results such as head injury, psychiatric illness, other illicit drugs etc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Evaluate the application of Li et al

A

We now know to provide care plans when sending addicts back into society in order to shield them from cues that could cause relapse

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Evaluate the validity of Li et al

A

Ecological validity - the rehab centre is a familiar setting

Task validity - MRI scans are not natural behaviour

Demand characteristics - Can’t change MRI results, but craving scale is self-report data and so may not be accurate (authoritarian culture may affect this)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Evaluate the ethics of Li et al

A

Protection from harm - all the exclusions prevent harm being caused to the ppts
e.g. magnetic items mean they can’t do an MRI scan as this could rip objects out of their body

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly