Neurophysiological capacity in a working memory task differentiates dependent from nondependent heavy drinkers and controls

- Performance fails in alcohol dependent heavy drinkers at high working memory loads.
- A novel approach examined neurobehavioral changes from low to high demand states.
- Heavy drinkers engaged neurofunctional resources at lower demand than controls.
- Dependent heavy drinkers had diminished neural capacity at higher demand.

BackgroundDetermining the neurobehavioral profiles that differentiate heavy drinkers who are and are not alcohol dependent will inform treatment efforts. Working memory is linked to substance use disorders and can serve as a representation of the demand placed on the neurophysiology associated with cognitive control.MethodsBehavior and brain activity (via fMRI) were recorded during an N-Back working memory task in controls (CTRL), nondependent heavy drinkers (A-ND) and dependent heavy drinkers (A-D). Typical and novel step-wise analyses examined profiles of working memory load and increasing task demand, respectively.ResultsPerformance was significantly decreased in A-D during high working memory load (2-Back), compared to CTRL and A-ND. Analysis of brain activity during high load (0-Back vs. 2- Back) showed greater responses in the dorsal lateral and medial prefrontal cortices of A-D than CTRL, suggesting increased but failed compensation. The step-wise analysis revealed that the transition to Low Demand (0-Back to 1-Back) was associated with robust increases and decreases in cognitive control and default-mode brain regions, respectively, in A-D and A-ND but not CTRL. The transition to High Demand (1-Back to 2-Back) resulted in additional engagement of these networks in A-ND and CTRL, but not A-D.ConclusionHeavy drinkers engaged working memory neural networks at lower demand than controls. As demand increased, nondependent heavy drinkers maintained control performance but relied on additional neurophysiological resources, and dependent heavy drinkers did not display further resource engagement and had poorer performance. These results support targeting these brain areas for treatment interventions.