13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy of Invasive and Non-Invasive Brain Modulation Interventions for Addiction

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          It is important to find new treatments for addiction due to high relapse rates despite current interventions and due to expansion of the field with non-substance related addictive behaviors. Neuromodulation may provide a new type of treatment for addiction since it can directly target abnormalities in neurocircuits. We review literature on five neuromodulation techniques investigated for efficacy in substance related and behavioral addictions: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), (repetitive) transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), EEG, fMRI neurofeedback and deep brain stimulation (DBS) and additionally report on effects of these interventions on addiction-related cognitive processes. While rTMS and tDCS, mostly applied at the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, show reductions in immediate craving for various addictive substances, placebo-responses are high and long-term outcomes are understudied. The lack in well-designed EEG-neurofeedback studies despite decades of investigation impedes conclusions about its efficacy. Studies investigating fMRI neurofeedback are new and show initial promising effects on craving, but future trials are needed to investigate long-term and behavioral effects. Case studies report prolonged abstinence of opioids or alcohol with ventral striatal DBS but difficulties with patient inclusion may hinder larger, controlled trials. DBS in neuropsychiatric patients modulates brain circuits involved in reward processing, extinction and negative-reinforcement that are also relevant for addiction. To establish the potential of neuromodulation for addiction, more randomized controlled trials are needed that also investigate treatment duration required for long-term abstinence and potential synergy with other addiction interventions. Finally, future advancement may be expected from tailoring neuromodulation techniques to specific patient (neurocognitive) profiles.

          Related collections

          Most cited references115

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation.

          Since the rediscovery of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) about 10 years ago, interest in tDCS has grown exponentially. A noninvasive stimulation technique that induces robust excitability changes within the stimulated cortex, tDCS is increasingly being used in proof-of-principle and stage IIa clinical trials in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric disorders. Alongside these clinical studies, detailed work has been performed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the observed effects. In this review, the authors bring together the results from these pharmacological, neurophysiological, and imaging studies to describe their current knowledge of the physiological effects of tDCS. In addition, the theoretical framework for how tDCS affects motor learning is proposed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The role of medial prefrontal cortex in memory and decision making.

            Some have claimed that the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) mediates decision making. Others suggest mPFC is selectively involved in the retrieval of remote long-term memory. Yet others suggests mPFC supports memory and consolidation on time scales ranging from seconds to days. How can all these roles be reconciled? We propose that the function of the mPFC is to learn associations between context, locations, events, and corresponding adaptive responses, particularly emotional responses. Thus, the ubiquitous involvement of mPFC in both memory and decision making may be due to the fact that almost all such tasks entail the ability to recall the best action or emotional response to specific events in a particular place and time. An interaction between multiple memory systems may explain the changing importance of mPFC to different types of memories over time. In particular, mPFC likely relies on the hippocampus to support rapid learning and memory consolidation. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex.

              Responses to a number of different plasticity-inducing brain stimulation protocols are highly variable. However there is little data available on the variability of response to transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS). We tested the effects of TDCS over the motor cortex on corticospinal excitability. We also examined whether an individual's response could be predicted from measurements of onset latency of motor evoked potential (MEP) following stimulation with different orientations of monophasic transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Fifty-three healthy subjects participated in a crossover-design. Baseline latency measurements with different coil orientations and MEPs were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle prior to the application of 10 min of 2 mA TDCS (0.057 mA/cm2). Thirty MEPs were measured every 5 min for up to half an hour after the intervention to assess after-effects on corticospinal excitability. Anodal TDCS at 2 mA facilitated MEPs whereas there was no significant effect of 2 mA cathodal TDCS. A two-step cluster analysis suggested that approximately 50% individuals had only a minor, or no response to TDCS whereas the remainder had a facilitatory effect to both forms of stimulation. There was a significant correlation between the latency difference of MEPs (anterior-posterior stimulation minus latero-medial stimulation) and the response to anodal, but not cathodal TDCS. The large variability in response to these TDCS protocols is in line with similar studies using other forms of non-invasive brain stimulation. The effects highlight the need to develop more robust protocols, and understand the individual factors that determine responsiveness. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                + 31 208913706 , judyluigjes@gmail.com
                Journal
                Neuropsychol Rev
                Neuropsychol Rev
                Neuropsychology Review
                Springer US (New York )
                1040-7308
                1573-6660
                7 December 2018
                7 December 2018
                2019
                : 29
                : 1
                : 116-138
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000000084992262, GRID grid.7177.6, Department of Psychiatry, Academic Medical Center, , University of Amsterdam, ; PA3.227, PO box 22660, 1100DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]ISNI 0000000084992262, GRID grid.7177.6, Brain Imaging Center, Academic Medical Center, , University of Amsterdam, ; Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7857, GRID grid.1002.3, Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, Brain and Mental Health Research Hub, , Monash University, ; Clayton, VIC Australia
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0435 165X, GRID grid.16872.3a, Department of Psychiatry, , VU University Medical Center, ; Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [5 ]GRID grid.416167.3, Department of Psychiatry, , Icahn Medical School at Mount Sinai, ; New York, NY USA
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2171 8263, GRID grid.419918.c, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, an Institute of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, ; Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Article
                9393
                10.1007/s11065-018-9393-5
                6499746
                30536145
                3a137910-afce-4683-9e64-5147325689cb
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 19 December 2017
                : 8 November 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Academic Medical Center (AMC)
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                neuromodulation,addiction,deep brain stimulation,eeg neurofeedback,transcranial magnetic stimulation,transcranial direct current stimulation,cognitive outcome measures

                Comments

                Comment on this article