Rebecca A. Segrave

Background: Applying deep brain stimulation (DBS) to several brain regions has been investigated in attempts to treat highly treatment-resistant depression, with variable results. Our initial pilot data suggested that the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) could be a promising therapeutic target. Objective: The aim of this study was to gather blinded data exploring the efficacy of applying DBS to the BNST in patients with highly refractory depression. Method: Eight patients with chronic severe treatment-resistant depression underwent DBS to the BNST. A randomised, double-blind crossover study design with fixed stimulation parameters was followed and followed by a period of open-label stimulation. Results: During the double-blind crossover phase, no consistent antidepressant effects were seen with any of the four stimulation parameters applied, and no patients achieved response or remission criteria during the blinded crossover phase or during a subsequent period of three months of blinded stimulation. Stimulation-related side effects, especially agitation, were reported by a number of patients and were reversible with adjustment of the stimulation parameters. Conclusions: The results of this study do not support the application of DBS to the BNST in patients with highly resistant depression or ongoing research utilising stimulation at this brain site. The blocked randomised study design utilising fixed stimulation parameters was poorly tolerated by the participants and does not appear suitable for assessing the efficacy of DBS at this location.

Background: Many people with harmful addictive behaviors may not meet formal diagnostic thresholds for a disorder. A dimensional approach, by contrast, including clinical and community samples, is potentially key to early detection, prevention, and intervention. Importantly, while neurocognitive dysfunction underpins addictive behaviors, established assessment tools for neurocognitive assessment are lengthy and unengaging, difficult to administer at scale, and not suited to clinical or community needs. The BrainPark Assessment of Cognition (BrainPAC) Project sought to develop and validate an engaging and user-friendly digital assessment tool purpose-built to comprehensively assess the main consensus-driven constructs underpinning addictive behaviors. Objective: The purpose of this study was to psychometrically validate a gamified battery of consensus-based neurocognitive tasks against standard laboratory paradigms, ascertain test-retest reliability, and determine their sensitivity to addictive behaviors (eg, alcohol use) and other risk factors (eg, trait impulsivity). Methods: Gold standard laboratory paradigms were selected to measure key neurocognitive constructs (Balloon Analogue Risk Task [BART], Stop Signal Task [SST], Delay Discounting Task [DDT], Value-Modulated Attentional Capture [VMAC] Task, and Sequential Decision-Making Task [SDT]), as endorsed by an international panel of addiction experts; namely, response selection and inhibition, reward valuation, action selection, reward learning, expectancy and reward prediction error, habit, and compulsivity. Working with game developers, BrainPAC tasks were developed and validated in 3 successive cohorts (total N=600) and a separate test-retest cohort (N=50) via Mechanical Turk using a cross-sectional design. Results: BrainPAC tasks were significantly correlated with the original laboratory paradigms on most metrics (r=0.18-0.63, P<.05). With the exception of the DDT k function and VMAC total points, all other task metrics across the 5 tasks did not differ between the gamified and nongamified versions (P>.05). Out of 5 tasks, 4 demonstrated adequate to excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.72-0.91, P<.001; except SDT). Gamified metrics were significantly associated with addictive behaviors on behavioral inventories, though largely independent of trait-based scales known to predict addiction risk. Conclusions: A purpose-built battery of digitally gamified tasks is sufficiently valid for the scalable assessment of key neurocognitive processes underpinning addictive behaviors. This validation provides evidence that a novel approach, purported to enhance task engagement, in the assessment of addiction-related neurocognition is feasible and empirically defensible. These findings have significant implications for risk detection and the successful deployment of next-generation assessment tools for substance use or misuse and other mental disorders characterized by neurocognitive anomalies related to motivation and self-regulation. Future development and validation of the BrainPAC tool should consider further enhancing convergence with established measures as well as collecting population-representative data to use clinically as normative comparisons.

BACKGROUND Many people with harmful addictive behaviors may not meet formal diagnostic thresholds for a disorder. A dimensional approach, by contrast, including clinical and community samples, is potentially key to early detection, prevention, and intervention. Importantly, while neurocognitive dysfunction underpins addictive behaviors, established assessment tools for neurocognitive assessment are lengthy and unengaging, difficult to administer at scale, and not suited to clinical or community needs. The BrainPark Assessment of Cognition (BrainPAC) Project sought to develop and validate an engaging and user-friendly digital assessment tool purpose-built to comprehensively assess the main consensus-driven constructs underpinning addictive behaviors. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to psychometrically validate a gamified battery of consensus-based neurocognitive tasks against standard laboratory paradigms, ascertain test-retest reliability, and determine their sensitivity to addictive behaviors (eg, alcohol use) and other risk factors (eg, trait impulsivity). METHODS Gold standard laboratory paradigms were selected to measure key neurocognitive constructs (Balloon Analogue Risk Task [BART], Stop Signal Task [SST], Delay Discounting Task [DDT], Value-Modulated Attentional Capture [VMAC] Task, and Sequential Decision-Making Task [SDT]), as endorsed by an international panel of addiction experts; namely, response selection and inhibition, reward valuation, action selection, reward learning, expectancy and reward prediction error, habit, and compulsivity. Working with game developers, BrainPAC tasks were developed and validated in 3 successive cohorts (total N=600) and a separate test-retest cohort (N=50) via Mechanical Turk using a cross-sectional design. RESULTS BrainPAC tasks were significantly correlated with the original laboratory paradigms on most metrics (r=0.18-0.63, P<.05). With the exception of the DDT k function and VMAC total points, all other task metrics across the 5 tasks did not differ between the gamified and nongamified versions (P>.05). Out of 5 tasks, 4 demonstrated adequate to excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.72-0.91, P<.001; except SDT). Gamified metrics were significantly associated with addictive behaviors on behavioral inventories, though largely independent of trait-based scales known to predict addiction risk. CONCLUSIONS A purpose-built battery of digitally gamified tasks is sufficiently valid for the scalable assessment of key neurocognitive processes underpinning addictive behaviors. This validation provides evidence that a novel approach, purported to enhance task engagement, in the assessment of addiction-related neurocognition is feasible and empirically defensible. These findings have significant implications for risk detection and the successful deployment of next-generation assessment tools for substance use or misuse and other mental disorders characterized by neurocognitive anomalies related to motivation and self-regulation. Future development and validation of the BrainPAC tool should consider further enhancing convergence with established measures as well as collecting population-representative data to use clinically as normative comparisons.

Everyday client stressors are often challenging to replicate in clinical and research environments, which hinders the ability to reliably reproduce clinica

The qualitative analysis presented by Mergenthaler et al. (2021) highlights pertinent ethical issues associated with recruitment and consent procedures in opportunity studies and experimental trial...