Table 1.
Relationships between rsFC and functionality in relevant psychological domains Impaired function/high vulnerability is associated with …
| Within | Between | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dx | Study | N/|Effect Sizes| | Rew | DMN | SN | ECN | Lim and ECN | Rew and Lim | Rew and ECN | Rew and SN | DMN and SN | DMN and Rew | DMN and Lim | DMN and ECN | SN and ECN | |
| Low Cognitive Contro l/ High Impulsive | NUD | Lerman 2014 | 37/r=0.72 | Up | Down | |||||||||||
| Cole 2010 | 17/r=0.62 | Down | Up | |||||||||||||
| Hobkirk 2018 | 9/r=0.7–0.82 | Up | Up | |||||||||||||
| AUD | Muller-O. 2015 | 27/r=0.5 | Down | |||||||||||||
| Zhu 2017 | 25/r=0.5–0.7 | Down | Up | Down | Down/Up | Up | ||||||||||
| Camchong 2013c | 27/rho= 0.4 | Up | Down | |||||||||||||
| Camchong 2013b | 23/r=0.6 | Up | ||||||||||||||
| StUD | Contreras-R. 2015 | 20/r=0.7–0.8 | Up | Up | Up | |||||||||||
| Contreras-R. 2016 | 20/r=0.6 | Up | Up | |||||||||||||
| McHugh 2013 | 661/r=0.3 | Down | ||||||||||||||
| McHugh 2017 | 581/r=0.4–0.5 | Down | ||||||||||||||
| Berlingeri 2017 | 18/not avail. | Up | Up | |||||||||||||
| Kohno 2016 | 19/r=0.3 | Up | ||||||||||||||
| Camchong 2011 | 27/r=0.3–0.4 | Up | Up | |||||||||||||
| Kohno 2014 | 25 not avail. | Up | Down | |||||||||||||
| CaUD | Whitfield-G. 2017 | 12/r=0.6 | Up | Up | ||||||||||||
| Pujol 2014 | 28/r=0.9 | Up | ||||||||||||||
| OUD | Zhai 2015 | 20/r=0.6 | Up | Down | Up | |||||||||||
| SUD | Motzkin 2014 | 401/r=0.4–0.5 | Down | |||||||||||||
| High Cue Reactivity | NUD | Janes 2015 | 17/not avail. | Up | ||||||||||||
| High Craving/Subjective W/d | NUD | Wilcox 2017* | 144/rho= 0.2 | Up | Up | Up | ||||||||||
| Sutherland 2013 | 24/r=0.6 | Down | Down | |||||||||||||
| Yang 2017 | 32/r=0.52 | Up | ||||||||||||||
| Hobkir k 2018 | 9/r=0.7–0.82 | Up | Up | |||||||||||||
| Cole 2010 | 17/r=0.62 | Down | Up | |||||||||||||
| Bi 2017 | 33/r=0.52 | Up | ||||||||||||||
| Janes 2014 | 17/not avail.2 | Up | Up | Up | Up | Up | Up | |||||||||
| Lerman 2014 | 37/r=0.72 | Up | Down | |||||||||||||
| AUD | Kohno 2017 | 27/0.5–06 | Up | Up | ||||||||||||
| Kohno 2017 | 18/0.5 | Up | ||||||||||||||
| High Anx/High Dep/Impaired ER | NUD | Sutherland 2013 | 24/r=0.5 | Down | Down | |||||||||||
| AUD | Mueller O. 2015 | 27/r=0.5–0.6 | Down | Down | ||||||||||||
Studies listed in italics did not utilize network based approaches but performed regions of interest/seed-based analyses instead. For these studies, results applying to particular brain regions which fell anatomically within one of these networks (as defined in the “Definitions” section of this paper) are displayed in this table as if they occurred in a network.
This study used functional network connectivity rather than functional connectivity.
Both healthy controls and individuals with cocaine use disorder were included in these correlation analyses. In all other studies sample and effect sizes are reported for the SUD groups only.
These effect sizes were derived from change scores (over time). All other studies utilized a single time point.
N=sample size
r=Pearson’s correlation coefficient
rho=Spearman’s rho
Rew=reward
Lim=limbic
ECN=executive control network
SN=salience network
DMN=default mode network
Dx=diagnosis
NUD=nicotine use disorder
AUD=alcohol use disorder
StUD=stimulant use disorder
CaUD=cannabis use disorder
OUD=opiate use disorder
SUD=substance use disorder (poly substance use disorder)
Up=elevated connectivity in these circuits were reported
Down=reduced connectivity in these circuits were reported
W/d=withdrawal
High Anx=high anxiety
High Dep=high depression
ER=emotion regulation
Ambiguous citations:
Wilcox 2017 = Wilcox CE, Claus, ED, Calhoun, VD, Rachakonda, S, Littlewood, RA, Mickey, J, Arenella, PB, Goodreau, N, & Hutchison, KE (2017) Default mode network deactivation to smoking cue relative to food cue predicts treatment outcome in nicotine use disorder. Addict Biol.
Sutherland MT, Carroll, AJ, Salmeron, BJ, Ross, TJ, & Stein, EA (2013) Insulas’ functional connectivity with ventromedial prefrontal cortex mediates the impact of trait alexithymia on state tobacco craving. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 228(1): 143–155.