Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| R34DA038869 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) | NIH |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering cognitive training over mTurk. Subjects will be randomized to a 1) inhibitory control training condition, 2) working memory training condition, or 3) control training condition. Recent studies have also demonstrated the feasibility and potential efficacy of delivering brief normative feedback to reduce alcohol consumption through mTurk. In these brief interventions, subjects are provided information about their drinking compared to their same age and gendered peers. Approximately half of the subjects in each cognitive training group will receive normative feedback to evaluate effects on alcohol consumption and possible interactions with cognitive training. This study will focus on alcohol use given the ease and clinical acceptance of alcohol use self-report as a primary outcome.
Alcohol use disorder is a persistent public health concern. Approximately 16 million Americans met criteria for alcohol use disorder in 2015, with the annual economic impact of excessive drinking estimated at $250 billion. Alcohol use can also interact with other licit (e.g., cigarettes) and illicit (e.g., cocaine) substances to increase health risks . At least half of all violent crimes involve alcohol consumption and problem drinking plays an important role in domestic abuse and intimate partner violence . These evident economic, health, and social implications of alcohol misuse highlight the importance of understanding determinants of alcohol use behaviors and developing interventions designed to address maladaptive patterns of use.
Cognitive training to address alcohol and other substance use disorders has received a great deal of attention in the interventions development literature. Training may be broadly divided into two classes: 1) cognitive bias modification and response inhibition (i.e., inhibitory control) and 2) working memory interventions. Inhibitory control training attempts to retrain prepotent responses away from drug-related cues by specifically pairing those cues with no-go signals in training tasks. Working memory training uses cognitive-behavioral tasks (e.g., letter/digit strings, visual search, n-back) to improve information maintenance and manipulation. These brief interventions hold particular appeal because they may be easily incorporated into comprehensive approaches to substance use treatment. For example, cognitive improvements due to brief training may improve engagement with and attention to cognitive-behavioral therapy and compliance with homework and other program-related activities. Generally speaking, training has consistently demonstrated improvements on the trained or similar tasks as well as related concepts (e.g., delay discounting is improved after working memory training). Improvements in dissimilar tasks or different domains are not consistently observed, however, and clinical measures, such as drug use, have seen mixed outcomes.
A significant limitation of the extant literature is the relatively small samples typically evaluated (i.e., 20-40 subjects per condition). It is likely that the effects of cognitive training are of a small-to-medium effect size, however, the relatively low costs of training procedures mean that small effect sizes may not preclude clinical utility. It is also likely that individual characteristics will moderate the utility of these interventions for impacting substance use or related negative health behaviors. The use of small samples precludes testing these types of moderators with adequate statistical power as does the recruitment of comparably homogeneous samples (e.g., student samples, individuals from a single addiction clinic).
An emerging method addressing these concerns is crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing, such as on Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk (mTurk), allows for the effective and efficient sampling of diverse subjects. We have previously demonstrated a close correspondence between in-person and online findings using mTurk in substance use research providing support for the validity of the resource. We have also recently demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and validity of conducting intensive longitudinal research related to substance use on this platform. Demonstrating the feasibility and acceptability of applying cognitive training methods through mTurk would help establish this setting for future large sample studies testing novel interventions and/or individual characteristic moderating intervention efficacy.
The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering cognitive training over mTurk. Subjects will be randomized to a 1) inhibitory control training condition, 2) working memory training condition, or 3) control training condition. Recent studies have also demonstrated the feasibility and potential efficacy of delivering brief normative feedback to reduce alcohol consumption through mTurk. In these brief interventions, subjects are provided information about their drinking compared to their same age and gendered peers. Approximately half of the subjects in each cognitive training group will receive normative feedback to evaluate effects on alcohol consumption and possible interactions with cognitive training. This study will focus on alcohol use given the ease and clinical acceptance of alcohol use self-report as a primary outcome.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attentional Control with Normative Feedback | Sham Comparator | Control training tasks will include completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
|
| Inhibitory Control Training with Normative Feedback | Experimental | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
|
| Working Memory Training with Normative Feedback | Experimental | A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
|
| Attentional Control without Normative Feedback |
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normative Feedback | Behavioral | Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Alcohol Use | Self-report of percent of heavy alcohol drinking days | Past two weeks |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of Sessions Completed (Feasibility) | Completion rates during intervention period | 2 weeks |
| Treatment Acceptability Questionnaire | Total average ratings on a treatment acceptability questionnaire, rated from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater treatment acceptability. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Craig R Rush, PhD | University of Kentucky | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Kentucky | Lexington | Kentucky | 40507 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30888705 | Derived | Strickland JC, Hill JC, Stoops WW, Rush CR. Feasibility, Acceptability, and Initial Efficacy of Delivering Alcohol Use Cognitive Interventions via Crowdsourcing. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2019 May;43(5):888-899. doi: 10.1111/acer.13987. Epub 2019 Mar 19. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | Control training tasks included completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to normative feedback were directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Normative Feedback: Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
| FG001 | Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to normative feedback were directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Normative Feedback: Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Inhibitory Control Training: The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. |
| FG002 | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | A battery of working memory tasks was used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks included visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to normative feedback were directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
| FG003 | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Control training tasks included completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). |
| FG004 | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). Inhibitory Control Training: The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. |
| FG005 | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback | A battery of working memory tasks was used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks included visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). Working Memory Training: A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | Control training tasks included completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to normative feedback were directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Normative Feedback: Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Alcohol Use | Self-report of percent of heavy alcohol drinking days | These data include only participants that were randomized and completed the follow-up assessment providing valid alcohol use data. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | percentage heavy drinking days | Past two weeks |
|
Adverse events were collected over the 4 week study period (2 week intervention and 2 week follow-up)
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Attentional Control With Normative Feedback | Control training tasks included completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to normative feedback were directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Normative Feedback: Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Craig Rush, Ph.D. | University of Kentucky | 859-257-5388 | crush2@uky.edu |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Feb 22, 2018 | Nov 26, 2019 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000437 | Alcoholism |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D019973 | Alcohol-Related Disorders |
| D019966 | Substance-Related Disorders |
| D064419 | Chemically-Induced Disorders |
| D001523 | Mental Disorders |
Not provided
Not provided
An Internet survey hosted by Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk and Qualtrics: Online Survey Software will be used in this protocol. Cognitive tasks will be coded using PsyToolKit, an open-source tool for programming and running cognitive-psychological experiments and surveys online (Stoet, 2017). A mixed-model design will be used such that subjects are randomly assigned to one of three cognitive training conditions and two information feedback conditions (i.e., between-subjects variables). The same subjects will be sampled at each time point in the study (i.e., repeated/longitudinal variables).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| No Intervention |
Control training tasks will include completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). |
| Inhibitory Control Training without Normative Feedback | Experimental | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). |
|
| Working Memory Training without Normative Feedback | Experimental | A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback will receive feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). |
|
| Inhibitory Control Training | Behavioral | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. |
|
| Working Memory Training | Behavioral | A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. |
|
| 2 weeks |
| BG001 | Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to normative feedback were directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Normative Feedback: Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Inhibitory Control Training: The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. |
| BG002 | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | A battery of working memory tasks was used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks included visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to normative feedback were directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
| BG003 | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Control training tasks included completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). |
| BG004 | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). Inhibitory Control Training: The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. |
| BG005 | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback | A battery of working memory tasks was used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks included visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). Working Memory Training: A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. |
| BG006 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
| OG001 |
| Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback |
The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to normative feedback were directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Normative Feedback: Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Inhibitory Control Training: The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. |
| OG002 | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | A battery of working memory tasks was used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks included visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to normative feedback were directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. |
| OG003 | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Control training tasks included completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). |
| OG004 | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). Inhibitory Control Training: The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. |
| OG005 | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback | A battery of working memory tasks was used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks included visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a non-alcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). Working Memory Training: A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the n-back task. |
|
|
| Secondary | Percentage of Sessions Completed (Feasibility) | Completion rates during intervention period | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | percentage of sessions completed | 2 weeks |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Treatment Acceptability Questionnaire | Total average ratings on a treatment acceptability questionnaire, rated from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater treatment acceptability. | These data include only participants that were randomized and completed the follow-up assessment providing valid acceptability data. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | 2 weeks |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 76 |
| 0 |
| 76 |
| 0 |
| 76 |
| EG001 | Inhibitory Control Training With Normative Feedback | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to normative feedback were directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Normative Feedback: Subjects assigned to normative feedback will be directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender. Inhibitory Control Training: The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. | 0 | 72 | 0 | 72 | 0 | 72 |
| EG002 | Working Memory Training With Normative Feedback | A battery of working memory tasks was used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks included visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the nback task. Subjects assigned to normative feedback were directed to a statement standardized based on subjects' reported average number of standard drinks per week, age, and gender | 0 | 76 | 0 | 76 | 0 | 76 |
| EG003 | Attentional Control Without Normative Feedback | Control training tasks included completion of basic arithmetic problems for approximately 5 minutes. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a nonalcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). | 0 | 73 | 0 | 73 | 0 | 73 |
| EG004 | Inhibitory Control Training Without Normative Feedback | The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a nonalcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). Inhibitory Control Training: The inhibitory control training task is a modified version of the Cued Go/No-Go tasks (Weafer and Fillmore, 2012; Miller et al. 1991) and is based on a task currently used in our laboratory targeting cocaine inhibitory control. | 0 | 73 | 0 | 73 | 0 | 73 |
| EG005 | Working Memory Training Without Normative Feedback | A battery of working memory tasks was used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks included visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the nback task. Subjects assigned to not receive normative feedback received feedback on time spent doing a nonalcohol related activity as an attention/informational control (e.g., time spent watching television; LaBrie et al., 2013). Working Memory Training: A battery of working memory tasks will be used during the intervention period. These tasks were selected from previous research evaluating working memory training in substance use disorder (Bickel et al., 2011b; Houben et al., 2011b). Tasks will include visuospatial working memory task, digit span task, letter span task, and the nback task. | 0 | 74 | 0 | 74 | 0 | 74 |
Not provided
Not provided