Advertisement

Current Addiction Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 332–342 | Cite as

Brain Mechanisms of Change in Addiction Treatment: Models, Methods, and Emerging Findings

  • Tammy Chung
  • Antonio Noronha
  • Kathleen M. Carroll
  • Marc N. Potenza
  • Kent Hutchison
  • Vince D. Calhoun
  • John D. E. Gabrieli
  • Jon Morgenstern
  • Sara Jo Nixon
  • Bruce E. Wexler
  • Judson Brewer
  • Lara Ray
  • Francesca Filbey
  • Timothy J. Strauman
  • Hedy Kober
  • Sarah W. Feldstein Ewing
Hot Topic

Abstract

Purpose of review

Increased understanding of “how” and “for whom” treatment works at the level of the brain has potential to transform addiction treatment through the development of innovative neuroscience-informed interventions. The 2015 Science of Change meeting bridged the fields of neuroscience and psychotherapy research to identify brain mechanisms of behavior change that are “common” across therapies and “specific” to distinct behavioral interventions.

Recent findings

Conceptual models of brain mechanisms underlying cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness interventions, and motivational interviewing differ in targeting brain circuits representing “top-down” cognitive control and “bottom-up” processing of reward. Methods for integrating neuroimaging into psychotherapy research can reveal recovery of brain functioning with sustained abstinence, which may be facilitated by psychotherapy and cognitive training.

Summary

Neuroimaging provides powerful tools for determining brain mechanisms underlying treatment effects, predicting and monitoring outcomes, developing novel neuroscience-informed interventions, and identifying for whom an intervention will be effective.

Keywords

Neuroimaging psychotherapy Addictive behaviors Translational Alcohol Substance use disorder 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr Bob Huebner for the inspiration for the meeting and for his enthusiastic support of this conference series. The 2015 Science of Change meeting, “Neuroimaging mechanisms of change in psychotherapy for addictive behaviors,” was held as a satellite to the Research Society on Alcoholism Annual Meeting in San Antonio, TX.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Tammy Chung reports grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism during the conduct of the study. Kathleen M. Carroll reports grants and other fees from CBT4CBT LLC outside of the submitted work. In addition, Dr. Carroll has a patent copyright issued. Sara Jo Nixon reports grants from NIAAA, during the conduct of the study. Bruce E. Wexler has patent functionalities of brain training programs pending. Judson Brewer reports grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and other fees from Claritas MindSciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Potenza reports other fees from Springer, Oxford Press, and American Psychiatric Press; fees from Opiant/Lakelight Therapeutics, RiverMend Health, INSYS, and Shire; grants from Pfizer; and fees from Gambling and legal entities, outside the submitted work.

Antonio Noronha, Kent Hutchison, Vince D. Calhoun, John D. E. Gabrieli, Jon Morgenstern, Lara Ray, Francesca Filbey, Timothy J. Strauman, Hedy Kober, and Sarah W. Feldstein Ewing declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Support: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism R13 AA023455.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

Cited studies comply with research protections for human and animal subjects, as required by the specific journal in which the study was published.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.•
    Black JJ, Chung T. Mechanisms of change in adolescent substance use treatment: how does treatment work? Subst Abus. 2014;35(4):344–51. Review of behavioral studies of mechanisms of change in adolescent substance use treatment, which similar to reviews of behavioral research on mechanisms of change in adult addictions treatment, found greater support for “common” rather than “therapy-specific” mechanisms of change across distinct types of treatment.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.•
    Feldstein Ewing SW, Chung T. Neuroimaging mechanisms of change in psychotherapy for addictive behaviors: emerging translational approaches that bridge biology and behavior. Psychol Addict Behav. 2013;27(2):329–35. Introduction to a journal special issue on brain mechanisms of change in behavioral treatment for addictive behaviors.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.•
    Potenza MN, Sofuoglu M, Carroll KM, Rounsaville BJ. Neuroscience of behavioral and pharmacological treatments for addictions. Neuron. 2011;69(4):695–712. Review article on neurobiology of behavioral and pharmacologic interventions for addictive behaviors.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.•
    Sullivan EV, Noronha A. Translating alcohol research into practice. Alc Res: Curr Rev. 2015;37:1–3. Introduction to a journal issue that reviews recent findings from brain research relevant to prevention and treatment of alcohol use disorder.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calhoun VD, Miller R, Pearlson G, Adali T. The chronnectome: time-varying connectivity networks as the next frontier in fMRI data discovery. Neuron. 2014;84(2):262–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vergara V, Weiland B, Hutchison K, Calhoun VD, editors. Dynamic functional network connectivity in the brain of nicotine and alcohol users. Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping; 2015; Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vergara V, Mayer A, Calhoun VD, editors. The impact of data preprocessing in traumatic brain injury diagnosis using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Milan: EMBC; 2015.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silva R, Castro E, Gupta N, Cetin M, Arbabshirani M, Potluru V, et al., editors. The tenth annual MLSP competition: schizophrenia classification challenge. Reims: IEEE International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing; 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sui J, Yu Q, He H, Calhoun VD. A selective review of multimodal fusion methods in schizophrenia. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6:article 27.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Plis SM, Hjelm DR, Salakhutdinov R, Allen EA, Bockholt HJ, Long JD, et al. Deep learning for neuroimaging: a validation study. Front Neurosci. 2014;8:229.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amin F, Plis S, Damaraju E, Hjelm D, Cho K, Calhoun VD, editors. A deep-learning approach to translate between brain structure and brain function. Palo Alto: Pattern Recognition in NeuroImaging (PRNI); 2015.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eickhoff S, Nichols TE, Van Horn JD, Turner JA. Sharing the wealth: neuroimaging data repositories. Neuroimage. 2016;124(Pt B:1065–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    King MD, Wood D, Miller B, Kelly R, Landis D, Courtney W, et al. Automated collection of imaging and phenotypic data to centralized and distributed data repositories. Front Neuroinform. 2014;8(60):60.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wood D, King M, Landis D, Courtney W, Wang R, Kelly R, et al. Harnessing modern web application technology to create intuitive and efficient data visualization and sharing tools. Front Neuroinform. 2014;8(71):71.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pfefferbaum A, Rosenbloom MJ, Fama R, Sassoon SA, Sullivan EV. Transcallosal white matter degradation detected with quantitative fiber tracking in alcoholic men and women: selective relations to dissociable functions. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2010;34(7):1201–11.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oscar-Berman M, Marinkovic K. Alcohol: effects on neurobehavioral functions and the brain. Neuropsychol Rev. 2007;17(3):239–57.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zahr NM, Kaufman KL, Harper CG. Clinical and pathological features of alcohol-related brain damage. Nat Rev Neurol. 2011;7(5):284–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rangaswamy M, Porjesz B. Understanding alcohol use disorders with neuroelectrophysiology. In: Sullivan EV, Pfefferbaum A, editors. Handbook of clinical neurology. Waltham: Elsevier; 2014. p. 383–414.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fein G, Cardenas VA. Neuroplasticity in human alcoholism: studies of extended abstinence with potential treatment implications. Alcohol Res. 2015;37(1):125–41.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pitel AL, Eustache F, Beaunieux H. Component processes of memory in alcoholism: pattern of compromise and neural substrates. In: Sullivan EV, Pfefferbaum A, editors. Handbook of clinical neurology. Waltham: Elsevier; 2014. p. 211–25.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bates ME, Pawlak AP, Tonigan JS, Buckman JF. Cognitive impairment influences drinking outcome by altering therapeutic mechanisms of change. Psychol Addict Behav. 2006;20(3):241–53.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buckman JF, Bates ME, Morgenstern J. Social support and cognitive impairment in clients receiving treatment for alcohol- and drug-use disorders: a replication study. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2008;69(5):738–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldman MS. Cognitive impairment in chronic alcoholics. Some cause for optimism. Am Psychol. 1983;38(10):1045–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Houben K, Wiers RW, Jansen A. Getting a grip on drinking behavior: training working memory to reduce alcohol abuse. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(7):968–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rupp CI, Kemmler G, Kurz M, Hinterhuber H, Fleischhacker WW. Cognitive remediation therapy during treatment for alcohol dependence. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012;73(4):625–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nau AC, Pintar C, Arnoldussen A, Fisher C. Acquisition of visual perception in blind adults using the BrainPort artificial vision device. Am J Occup Ther. 2015;69(1):6901290010p1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morimoto SS, Wexler BE, Liu J, Hu W, Seirup J, Alexopoulos GS. Neuroplasticity-based computerized cognitive remediation for treatment-resistant geriatric depression. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4579.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.•
    Gabrieli JD, Ghosh SS, Whitfield-Gabrieli S. Prediction as a humanitarian and pragmatic contribution from human cognitive neuroscience. Neuron. 2015;85(1):11–26. Review of neuroimaging research on the use of brain functional or structural measures (neuromarkers) as predictors of educational, health, and treatment outcomes in youth and adults.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Doehrmann O, Ghosh SS, Polli FE, Reynolds GO, Horn F, Keshavan A, et al. Predicting treatment response in social anxiety disorder from functional magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70(1):87–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Ghosh SS, Nieto-Castanon A, Saygin Z, Doehrmann O, Chai XJ, et al. Brain connectomics predict response to treatment in social anxiety disorder. Mol Psychiatry. 2015.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Norman AL, Pulido C, Squeglia LM, Spadoni AD, Paulus MP, Tapert SF. Neural activation during inhibition predicts initiation of substance use in adolescence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;119(3):216–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stice E, Yokum S, Burger KS. Elevated reward region responsivity predicts future substance use onset but not overweight/obesity onset. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;73(9):869–76.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grusser SM, Wrase J, Klein S, Hermann D, Smolka MN, Ruf M, et al. Cue-induced activation of the striatum and medial prefrontal cortex is associated with subsequent relapse in abstinent alcoholics. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2004;175(3):296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Braus DF, Wrase J, Grusser S, Hermann D, Ruf M, Flor H, et al. Alcohol-associated stimuli activate the ventral striatum in abstinent alcoholics. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2001;108(7):887–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morgenstern J, Kuerbis A, Amrhein P, Hail L, Lynch K, McKay JR. Motivational interviewing: a pilot test of active ingredients and mechanisms of change. Psychol Addict Behav. 2012;26(4):859–69.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.•
    Filbey FM, Aslan S, Calhoun VD, Spence JS, Damaraju E, Caprihan A, et al. Long-term effects of marijuana use on the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(47):16913–8. Study comparing marijuana users and controls, which found that marijuana users had greater functional connectivity in orbitofrontal cortex network, which was associated with earlier age of marijuana use onset. Results suggest complex neuroadaptive processes associated with long-term marijuana use.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Filbey FM, McQueeny T, DeWitt SJ, Mishra V. Preliminary findings demonstrating latent effects of early adolescent marijuana use onset on cortical architecture. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2015.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Filbey FM, Dunlop J. Differential reward network functional connectivity in cannabis dependent and non-dependent users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;140:101–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.•
    Feldstein Ewing SW, Filbey FM, Hendershot CS, McEachern AD, Hutchison KE. Proposed model of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying psychosocial alcohol interventions: the example of motivational interviewing. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2011;72(6):903–16. This article describes a model of brain mechanisms underlying effects of motivational interviewing. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Feldstein Ewing SW, Filbey FM, Sabbineni A, Chandler LD, Hutchison KE. How psychosocial alcohol interventions work: a preliminary look at what FMRI can tell us. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2011;35(4):643–51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Feldstein Ewing SW, McEachern AD, Yezhuvath U, Bryan AD, Hutchison KE, Filbey FM. Integrating brain and behavior: evaluating adolescents’ response to a cannabis intervention. Psychol Addict Behav. 2013;27(2):510–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brewer JA, Elwafi HM, Davis JH. Craving to quit: psychological models and neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness training as treatment for addictions. Psychol Addict Behav. 2013;27(2):366–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.•
    Elwafi HM, Witkiewitz K, Mallik S, Thornhill TA, Brewer JA. Mindfulness training for smoking cessation: moderation of the relationship between craving and cigarette use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;130(1-3):222–9. This was the first study to show that mindfulness training directly targets core behavioral learning processes implicated in addictive behavior, namely operant conditioning. It specifically showed that mindfulness decoupled the link between craving and smoking. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.•
    Brewer JA, Mallik S, Babuscio TA, Nich C, Johnson HE, Deleone CM, et al. Mindfulness training for smoking cessation: results from a randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;119(1-2):72–80. This was the first study to show the efficacy of mindfulness training for smoking cessation. Mindfulness training was found to have significantly increased efficacy compared to “gold standard” behavioral treatment. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brewer JA, Davis JH, Goldstein J. Why is it so hard to pay attention, or is it? Mindfulness, the factors of awakening and reward-based learning. Mindfulness (N Y). 2013;4(1):75–80.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Brewer JA, Garrison KA, Whitfield-Gabrieli S. What about the “self” is processed in the posterior cingulate cortex? Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:647.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brewer JA, Garrison KA. The posterior cingulate cortex as a plausible mechanistic target of meditation: findings from neuroimaging. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1307:19–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.•
    Brewer JA, Worhunsky PD, Gray JR, Tang YY, Weber J, Kober H. Meditation experience is associated with differences in default mode network activity and connectivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(50):20254–9. This was the first study to show altered brain activity and connectivity in experienced meditators across a number of different meditation techniques. It specifically showed altered default mode network activity and connectivity in experts. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.•
    Garrison KA, Scheinost D, Worhunsky PD, Elwafi HM, Thornhill TA, Thompson E, et al. Real-time fMRI links subjective experience with brain activity during focused attention. Neuroimage. 2013;81:110–8. This was the first study to show that real-time fMRI neurofeedback could be used to link subjective experience with brain activity. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.•
    Garrison KA, Santoyo JF, Davis JH, Thornhill TA, Kerr CE, Brewer JA. Effortless awareness: using real time neurofeedback to investigate correlates of posterior cingulate cortex activity in meditators’ self-report. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:440. This was the first neurophenomenological study of meditation that identified posterior cingulate activity as directly correlated with “getting caught up” in behavior (increased activity), and “letting go” (decreased activity) through mindful awareness. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition: DSM-5. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association; 2012.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kober H, Mell MM. Neural mechanisms underlying craving and the regulation of craving. In: Wilson SJ, editor. The Wiley handbook on the cognitive neuroscience of addiction. Oxford: Wiley & Sons; 2015.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gass JC, Motschman CA, Tiffany ST. The relationship between craving and tobacco use behavior in laboratory studies: a meta-analysis. Psychol Addict Behav. 2014;28(4):1162–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Boswell RG, Kober H. Food cue reactivity and craving predict eating and weight gain: a meta-analytic review. Obes Rev. 2016;17(2):159–77.Google Scholar
  55. 55.••
    Carroll KM. A cognitive-behavioral approach: treating cocaine addiction. NIH Publication Number: 98-4308. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Drug Abuse; 1998. Treatment manual for cognitive-behavioral therapy in addiction, including sections on regulation of craving. Instructions in the original ROC task (Kober et al., 2010) are modeled after the strategies in this manual. Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Carroll KM, Nich C, Ball SA, McCance E, Frankforter TL, Rounsaville BJ. One-year follow-up of disulfiram and psychotherapy for cocaine-alcohol users: sustained effects of treatment. Addiction. 2000;95(9):1335–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kiluk BD, Nich C, Babuscio T, Carroll KM. Quality versus quantity: acquisition of coping skills following computerized cognitive behavioral therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2010;105(12):2120–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    O’Connell KA, Hosein VL, Schwartz JE, Leibowitz RQ. How does coping help people resist lapses during smoking cessation? Health Psychol. 2007;26(1):77–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kober H, Mende-Siedlecki P, Kross EF, Weber J, Mischel W, Hart CL, et al. Prefrontal-striatal pathway underlies cognitive regulation of craving. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(33):14811–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.••
    Higgins ET. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am Psychol. 1997;52(12):1280–300. This is the original version of the Regulation of Craving (ROC) task. Findings suggest that cognitive regulation depend on recruitment of dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, and modulate activity in subcortical regions associated with craving including ventral striatum, amygdala, and subgenual anterior cingulate. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Strauman TJ. Self-guides, autobiographical memory, and anxiety and dysphoria: toward a cognitive model of vulnerability to emotional distress. J Abnorm Psychol. 1992;101(1):87–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Eddington KM, Dolcos F, Mclean AN, Krishnan KR, Cabeza R, Strauman TJ. Neural correlates of idiographic goal priming in depression: goal-specific dysfunctions in the orbitofrontal cortex. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2009;4(3):238–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Strauman TJ, Vieth AZ, Merrill KA, Kolden GG, Woods TE, Klein MH, et al. Self-system therapy as an intervention for self-regulatory dysfunction in depression: a randomized comparison with cognitive therapy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006;74(2):367–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Longabaugh R, Magill M, Morgenstern J, Huebner R. Mechanisms of behavior change in treatment for alcohol and other drug use disorders. In: McCrady BS, Epstein EE, editors. Addictions: a comprehensive guidebook. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 572–96.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Field M, Kiernan A, Eastwood B, Child R. Rapid approach responses to alcohol cues in heavy drinkers. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2008;39(3):209–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Heather N, Rollnick S. Readiness to change questionnaire: user’s manual. 2000.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Morgenstern J, Naqvi NH, Debellis R, Breiter HC. The contributions of cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging to understanding mechanisms of behavior change in addiction. Psychol Addict Behav. 2013;27(2):336–50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Naqvi NH, Morgenstern J. Cognitive neuroscience approaches to understanding behavior change in alcohol use disorder treatments. Alcohol Res. 2015;37(1):29–38.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Morgenstern J, Kuerbis A, Muench F. Ecological momentary assessment and alcohol use disorder treatment. Alcohol Res. 2014;36(1):101–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Heilig M, Leggio L. What the alcohol doctor ordered from the neuroscientist: theragnostic biomarkers for personalized treatments. Progress in Brain Research: doi:  10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.07.023; (online 10-27-15).
  71. 71.
    Litten RZ, Ryan ML, Falk DE, Reilly M, Fertig JB, Koob GF. Heterogeneity of alcohol use disorder: understanding mechanisms to advance personalized treatment. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39:579–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.•
    Fadardi JS, Cox WM, Rahman A. Neuroscience of attentional processes for addiction medicine: from brain mechanisms to practical considerations. Progress in Brain Research: doi:  10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.08.002; (online 11-23-15). This review outlines a Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework for alcohol use disorder to guide research that will inform personalized treatment and “precision medicine”.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tammy Chung
    • 1
  • Antonio Noronha
    • 2
  • Kathleen M. Carroll
    • 3
  • Marc N. Potenza
    • 4
  • Kent Hutchison
    • 5
  • Vince D. Calhoun
    • 6
  • John D. E. Gabrieli
    • 7
  • Jon Morgenstern
    • 8
  • Sara Jo Nixon
    • 9
  • Bruce E. Wexler
    • 4
  • Judson Brewer
    • 10
    • 11
  • Lara Ray
    • 12
  • Francesca Filbey
    • 13
  • Timothy J. Strauman
    • 14
  • Hedy Kober
    • 15
  • Sarah W. Feldstein Ewing
    • 16
  1. 1.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Yale UniversityWest HavenUSA
  4. 4.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  5. 5.University of Colorado at Boulder, Muenzinger PsychologyBoulderUSA
  6. 6.The Mind Research NetworkThe University of New Mexico, 1 University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  7. 7.McGovern Institute for Brain ResearchMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  8. 8.Northwell HealthGreat NeckUSA
  9. 9.McKnight Brain InstituteUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  10. 10.University of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUK
  11. 11.Yale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  12. 12.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California at Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  13. 13.University of Texas at Dallas Center for Brain HealthDallasUSA
  14. 14.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA
  15. 15.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  16. 16.Oregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations