Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Biol Psychiatry. 2014 Sep 10;77(5):434–444. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.08.020

Table 1.

Population Author
(year)
Clinical
Group M/F
HC
M/F
Urine
Screen?
Image
Analysis
MC Phase/
Contrast
Striatal
Response
Coordinates Correlations
with Striatal
Response
Comments
Alcohol Dependence(AD) Wrase et al., 2007 (42) 16M 16M WB
ROI

Gain > Neutral -16,12,-4
  • -

    Alcohol Craving in AD negatively correlates with bilateral VS activation (-8,15,-4 &12,12,-4)

  • -

    AD in-patient detoxification treatment

  • -

    controlled for smoking status

Loss > Neutral -16,12,-4
Bjork et al., 2008 (46) 12M
11F
12M
11F
WB
ROI
Gain > Neutral TC: ±10,10,-4
  • -

    HC group VS response correlated positively with self-reported excitement

  • -

    collapsed across groups, VS signal positively correlates with self-reported impulsivity scores

  • -

    AD inpatients; high CD comorbidity + other substances

  • -

    all smokers

  • -

    inclusion of frustration trials

Loss > Neutral
Beck et al., 2009 (43) 19M 19M WB
ROI

Gain > Neutral 12,15,-6
  • -

    VS activity negatively correlates with self-reported impulsivity on the Barratt Impulsivity Scale, including Cognitive, Nonplanning and Motor subscales

  • -

    controlled for smoking status

Loss > Neutral (trend)
Bjork et al., 2012 (45) 15M
14F
12M
11F
WB
ROI
Pre-response: Gain Neutral TC: ±8,11,0
  • -

    AD inpatients; high CD comorbidity + other substances

  • -

    all smokers

  • -
    Two-stage anticipatory cuing:
    • Pre-response reward anticipation
    • Post-response reward anticipation
  • Loss trials not included in MIDT task

Post-response: Win > Hit
  • -

    Across groups, uncorrected VS activity during post-response reward anticipation on low rewards positively correlates with self-reported impulsivity on the NEO-IF

  • -

    AD group contrast of WIN>HIT trials in the VS did not survive multiple-comparison correction

Children of Alcoholics Andrews et al., 2011 (53) 10M
20F
7M
12F
WB
ROI

A1 Gain > baseline Caudate: -21,-36,18
  • -
    modified paradigm with 2 anticipatory phases (same as Patel et al., 2013; Balodis et al., 2012):
    • A1= prospectof gain + motorpreparation
    • A2 =anticipation
  • Loss trial results not reported

A2 Gain > baseline VS: 9,12,-6 VS activity negatively correlates with self-reported compulsivity and reward/punish ment sensitivity
Yau et al., 2012 (57) 12M
8F
12M
8F
WB
ROI

Gain > Neutral -10, 13, -8 & 11, 13, -8
  • -

    Across the entire sample: positive correlation with drinks per week (trend at loss level)

  • -

    Within COAs: positive correlation with drinks per week, lifetime alcohol volume, externalizing risk during both win and loss anticipation

  • -

    decreased VS activity was driven by the COAs with low-risk drinking

Cocaine Dependence (CD) Jia, Worhun-sky et al., 2011 (50) 12M
8F
12M
8F
ROI Gain > Neutral Caudate 10,8,3
  • -

    Treatment-seeking, cocaine use ∼5 days

  • Loss trial results not reported

Bustame-nte et al., 2013 (51) 17M 18M ROI Gain > Neutral 10,8,0 & -10,10,-2
  • -

    neutral condition requires no response

  • Loss trial results not reported

Gain > Neutral Caudate 12,5,19
  • -

    Left caudate correlates positively with months of treatment

Patel et al., 2013 (52) Current: 24M
18F Former: 26M 9F
26M
21F
ROI A1 Gain > baseline Custom-drawn
  • -

    in former CD group, VS activity negatively correlated with abstinence (uncorrected)

  • -
    modified paradigm with 2 anticipatory phases (same as Andrews et al., 2010; Balodis et al., 2012):
    • A1 = prospectof gain + motorpreparation
    • A2 =anticipation
A2 Gain > baseline
A1 Loss > baseline
A2 Loss > baseline
Stimulant Challenge Studies Knutson et al., 2004 (58) 6M
2F
ROI Gain > Neutral TC: ±11,12,-2–
  • -

    Striatal activity during both placebo and AMPH conditions correlated positively with self-rated positive arousal

  • -

    0.25mg/kg oral dextroamphetamine (AMPH)

  • -

    Relative to placebo, AMPH reduced activity to higher magnitude wins, but increased striatal activity to losses

Loss > Neutral
Schouw et al., 2012 (59) Recreational users: 8M 8M ROI Gain > Neutral
  • -

    used voxels that showed a significant interaction effect to create a mask to determine mean percent BOLD change

Loss > Neutral
8M ROI Gain > Neutral
  • -

    35mg oral methylphenidate

Recreational users: 8M ROI Gain > Neutral
Nicotine Dependence(ND) Rose et al., 2013 (47) 13M
15F
16M
12F
WB
ROI

PRIME-1 Valence Caudate -13,10, 0 9,12,2 (TC) Modified MIDT with 2 primes; PRIME-1 representing valence (Gain>Loss) PRIME-2 representing magnitude
13M
15F
16M
12F
WB
ROI

PRIME-1 Valence VS -13,10,-8 (TC)
  • -

    Smokers with nicotine patch relative to non- smoking HC group (without patch)

PRIME-2 Gain Magn itude Caudate -7,6,6 (TC)
PRIME-2 Loss Magn itude Caudate -10,1,1 4 (TC)
13M
15F
PRIME-1 Valence Putamen 24,-4,4 (TC)
  • -

    VS activity negatively associated with plasma nicotine levels

Jansmaet al., 2013 (60) 10M 11M ROI Gain > Neutr al ±12,14,-8
  • -

    administration of 6mg THC or placebo

  • Loss trial results not reported

Marijuana Dependence Van Hell et al., 2010 (48) 13M1F Smokers: 11M3F 11M2F WB
ROI
Gain > Neutral ±14,14,-8(TC)
  • -

    non-treatment seeking

  • Loss trial results not included in MIDT task

  • -

    negative urine screens for THC in almost all participants

  • -

    decreased VS in both Smokers and cannabis users relative to HCs

Nestor et al., 2010 (49) 14M 14M ∪ +THC WB Gain > Baseline 20,8,-4 VS activity during ‘win’ correlates positively with # of reported lifetime joints smoked
  • -

    MIDT version collapsed across magnitude

  • -

    all MD participants had positive THC urine toxicology

Loss > Baseline
Filbey et al., 2013 (63) 47M
12F
5M
22F
∪ +THC WB Gain > Neutral MNI extents on x: 8-16; y=15-6; z=-4--12
  • -

    required positive urinalysis for THC metabolites, but excluded for other drugs

  • -

    HC group showed no sig. difference during either incentive condition (gain or loss)–may be driving effect?

Loss > Baseline
Van Hell et al., 2012 (61) 11M ROI Gain > Neutral Dorsal caudate -8,4,4 & 12,8,0
  • -

    6mg THC administration or placebo

  • -
    ROI based on pooled group activation maps:
    • Loss trial results not included in MIDT task
Gambling Balodiset al., 2012 (55) 10M
4F
10M
4F
WB
ROI

A1 Gain
  • -
    modified paradigm with 2 anticipatory phases (same as Andrews et al., 2010; Patel et al., 2013):
    • A1 = prospectof gain + motor preparation
    • A2 =anticipation
A2 Gain 10,12,-11 VS activity correlates negatively with self-reported motor impulsivity
A1 Loss
A2 Loss -10,12,-11 VS activity correlates negatively with self-reported impulsivity and cognitive impulsivity on the Barratt Impulsivity Scale
Choi et al., 2012 (56) 15M 15M WB
ROI
Gain > Neutral 0,3,0
  • -

    no comorbidities in the GD group (except smoking) – duration of illness < 5 years

Loss > Neutral 0,3,0

M= Male; F= Female; ∪ = Urine Screen; ✗ = not done; ✓ = done; WB=Whole Brain Analysis; MC Correction= Correction for Multiple Comparisons; ROI = Region of Interest; ↓ = decreased striatal activity; ↑ = increased striatal activity; VS = Ventral Striatum; HC = Healthy Control; THC =Tetrahydrocannabinol; TC= Talairach Coordinates; MNI=Montreal Neurological Institute Coordinates (x,y,z), unless stated, all coordinates are in MNI.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure