Participants: 21 smokers (13M, ages 18-45) and 21 age-, gender-, race-, and education-matched controls. Procedure: Stimuli were 100 photographs: 50 food cues 50 cigarette cues All were previously shown to induce craving for food and cigarettes, respectively. Each image was preceded by instruction: 1. NOW: focus on the immediate sensory experience of consuming the substance depicted (food or cigarette) 2. LATER: focus on the long-term consequences of prolonged use Ss were instructed to maintain the focus on NOW/LATER for the duration of stimulus Each stimulus was then rated for desirability (“How much do you want to consume this item right now?”) Imaging Acquisition and Analysis: 28 4mm slices on 1.5T GE Scanner, TR 2 secs Pre-processing: SPM5, Stats: BrainVoyager v1.9 The Neural Bases of Regulating Appetitive Impulses Peter Mende-Siedlecki, Hedy Kober*, Ethan Kross, & Kevin Ochsner Department of Psychology, Columbia University Introduction Questions Methods Behavioral Results Summary & Conclusions Effective emotion regulation is critical for mental and physical health. Many studies have examined cognitive mechanisms for regulating negative emotions - few have examined other emotions. Substance abusers, for example, may be unable to regulate appetitive impulses - their craving for a given substance. The present studies investigate whether substance abusers can use cognitive strategies to regulate such appetitive impulses in an ecologically valid paradigm. The medial Orbitofrontal C ortex (OFC) and the ventral striatum (VS) have been identified as areas that contribute to processing of appetitive stimuli, and to drug craving in particular. 1.Can cigarette smokers successfully decrease cravings for a non-abused substance (food)? 2.Can cigarette smokers successfully decrease cravings for their substance of abuse (cigarettes)? 3.Will smokers be less successful than their matched controls at decreasing cravings for the non-abused substance (food)? 4.Will successful regulation of craving modulate activity in brain regions typically associated with craving (e.g. OFC, VS)? 5.Will brain activity for smokers differ for the non- abused substance compared to the abuse substance? 6.Will brain activity for smokers differ from controls? 1.Smokers successfully decrease cravings for a non-abused substance (food). 2.Smokers successfully decrease cravings for their substance of abuse (cigarettes). 3.Smokers are as successful as their matched controls at decreasing cravings for the non-abused substance (food). 4.Successful regulation of craving modulates activity in brain regions typically associated with craving. Significant correlations between activity in the NOW > LATER contrast and difference scores of reported desire were found in the Orbitofrontal Cortex and Ventral Striatum. 5.Brain activity for smokers differs for the non-abused substance (food) compared to the abused substance (cigarettes). In VS, the correlation between activity with the corresponding effective regulation score was significant for food but not for cigarettes. In OFC, the correlation between activity with the corresponding effective regulation score was significant for food but not for cigarettes. This suggests that VS and OFC activity differentiates between abused and non abused substances, and is less influenced by regulation of desire for the abused substance. 6.Brain activity does not differ between smokers and controls for the non-abused stimulus (food). This suggests that brain activity in these regions can be modulated as strongly by effective regulation of desire for food in smokers and controls. Prospects & Promise Seed analyses will allow us to examine connectivity among co-activated brain regions. Individual differences may further shed light on differential regulatory abilities across participants. Acknowledgements The authors thank NSF for Graduate Research Fellowship to Hedy Kober, and NIDA for grant 1R01-DA to Kevin N. Ochsner. Answer 4: YES, in smokers, successful regulation of craving modulates activity in “reward” areas previously associated with craving. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience Unit Dept. of Psychology 1190 Amsterdam Ave. 406 Schermerhorn Hall New York, NY As expected, Smokers reported greater desire for cigarettes compared to controls Answer 1: YES, smokers were able to successfully decrease craving for the non-abused substance Answer 2: YES, smokers were able to successfully decrease craving for the abused substance Answer 3: NO, smokers were not less successful than their matched controls in decreasing craving for the non-abused substance. - OFC and Ventral Striatum activity in NOW> LATER contrast correlates with difference scores of reported desire between conditions (large difference scores indicate successful decrease in craving in NOW> LATER trials). Ventral Striatum (6, 16, 1) (p =.005) NOW Stim - LATER Stim beta values correlated with corresponding effective regulation scores in smokers. (Cig: r =.152, p = n.s., Food: r =.586, p =.01) Brain Imaging Results *Corresponding author: Answer 5: YES, brain activity for smokers was different for the non-abused substance compared to the abused substance. Correlations between activity and behavioral regulation scores were different between food and cigarettes in both VS (Panel A) and in OFC (Panel B). NOW Food - LATER Food beta values correlated with effective regulation scores for food (Smokers: r =.586 p =.01, Controls: r =.524, p =.01) Left mOFC (-16, 41, -14) p =.005 NOW Stim - LATER Stim beta values correlated with corresponding effective regulation scores in smokers. (Cig: r =.342, p = n.s., Food: r =.523, p =.02 ) NOW Food - LATER Food beta values correlated with effective regulation scores for food (Smokers: r =.537, p =.01, Controls: r =.523, p =.03) Instruction 2s + CUE 6 secs ISI ~3.5s Rating up to 3s how much do you want it ITI ~4.5s NOW or LATER + * * * * * * In-Scanner Ratings Answer 6: NO, brain activity for smokers was not different for the non-abused substance (food) compared to controls. Correlations between activity and behavioral regulation scores for food were similar between groups in both VS (Panel A) and OFC (Panel B). A A B B Trial Sequence: