Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:01:14.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Neural activations during cognitive and affective theory of mind processing in healthy adults with a family history of alcohol use disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2023

F. Schmid*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Cognition, Santé, Société (C2S – EA 6291), University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France
A. Henry
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Cognition, Santé, Société (C2S – EA 6291), University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France Psychiatry Department, Marne Public Mental Health Institute & Reims University Hospital, Reims, France
F. Benzerouk
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Marne Public Mental Health Institute & Reims University Hospital, Reims, France INSERM U1247, Research Group on Alcohol and Dependences, University of Picardy Jules Verne, Amiens, France
S. Barrière
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Marne Public Mental Health Institute & Reims University Hospital, Reims, France
C. Portefaix
Affiliation:
Radiology Department, Maison Blanche Hospital, Reims University Hospital, Reims, France Centre de Recherche en Sciences et Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication (CReSTIC – EA 3804), University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France
J. Gondrexon
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Marne Public Mental Health Institute & Reims University Hospital, Reims, France
A. Obert
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Sciences de la Cognition, Technologie, Ergonomie (SCOTE – EA 7420), Champollion National University Institute, Albi, France
A. Kaladjian
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Cognition, Santé, Société (C2S – EA 6291), University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France Psychiatry Department, Marne Public Mental Health Institute & Reims University Hospital, Reims, France
F. Gierski*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Cognition, Santé, Société (C2S – EA 6291), University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France Psychiatry Department, Marne Public Mental Health Institute & Reims University Hospital, Reims, France INSERM U1247, Research Group on Alcohol and Dependences, University of Picardy Jules Verne, Amiens, France
*
Corresponding author: F. Schmid; Email: [email protected]; F. Gierski; Email: [email protected]
Corresponding author: F. Schmid; Email: [email protected]; F. Gierski; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Social cognition impairments are a common feature of alcohol use disorders (AUD). However, it remains unclear whether these impairments are solely the consequence of chronic alcohol consumption or whether they could be a marker of vulnerability.

Methods

The present study implemented a family history approach to address this question for a key process of social cognition: theory of mind (ToM). Thirty healthy adults with a family history of AUD (FH+) and 30 healthy adults with a negative family history of AUD (FH−), matched for age, sex, and education level, underwent an fMRI cartoon-vignette paradigm assessing cognitive and affective ToM. Participants also completed questionnaires evaluating anxiety, depressive symptoms, childhood trauma, and alexithymia.

Results

Results indicated that FH+ individuals differed from FH− individuals on affective but not cognitive ToM processing, at both the behavioral and neural levels. At the behavioral level, the FH+ group had lower response accuracy for affective ToM compared with the FH− group. At the neural level, the FH+ group had higher brain activations in the left insula and inferior frontal cortex during affective ToM processing. These activations remained significant when controlling for depressive symptoms, anxiety, and childhood trauma.

Conclusions

These findings highlight difficulties during affective ToM processing among first-degree relatives of AUD patients, supporting the idea that some of the impairments exhibited by these patients may already be present before the onset of AUD and may be considered a marker of vulnerability.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Social cognition refers to the cognitive processes underlying the comprehension of the behaviors of others in a social context, and encompasses the perception and interpretation of social cues, as well as the ensuing responses to these cues (Frith, Reference Frith2008; Happé, Cook, & Bird, Reference Happé, Cook and Bird2017). A growing body of research has highlighted impairments in various social cognition processes in individuals with alcohol use disorders (AUD), at both the neural and behavioral levels (Bora & Zorlu, Reference Bora and Zorlu2017; Le Berre, Reference Le Berre2019). For instance, individuals with AUD have demonstrated deficits in empathy and facial emotion recognition compared to healthy controls (Grynberg, Maurage, & Nandrino, Reference Grynberg, Maurage and Nandrino2017; Kumar, Skrzynski, & Creswell, Reference Kumar, Skrzynski and Creswell2022a; Maurage et al., Reference Maurage, Pabst, Lannoy, D'Hondt, de Timary, Gaudelus and Peyroux2021). On the neural level, these deficits were associated with structural and functional changes in several brain regions, notably the medial prefrontal cortex, the inferior frontal cortex, the insula, and the amygdala (Marinkovic et al., Reference Marinkovic, Oscar-Berman, Urban, O'Reilly, Howard, Sawyer and Harris2009; Trick, Kempton, Williams, & Duka, Reference Trick, Kempton, Williams and Duka2014). A deeper understanding of social cognition deficits in AUD is warranted given that they are associated with a range of functional consequences of AUD, such as more frequent interpersonal problems and higher relapse rates (Lewis, Price, Garcia, & Nixon, Reference Lewis, Price, Garcia and Nixon2019; Rupp, Derntl, Osthaus, Kemmler, & Fleischhacker, Reference Rupp, Derntl, Osthaus, Kemmler and Fleischhacker2017).

A core aspect of social cognition is theory of mind (ToM), the ability to attribute mental states, thereby allowing individuals to understand and predict other people's reactions and behaviors (Premack & Woodruff, Reference Premack and Woodruff1978). It is common to distinguish between two ToM components: affective ToM (i.e. ability to infer emotional mental states), and cognitive ToM (i.e. ability to infer non-emotional mental states such as intentions and beliefs) (Abu-Akel & Shamay-Tsoory, Reference Abu-Akel and Shamay-Tsoory2011).

In AUD, ToM impairments have been found with tasks targeting both, affective and cognitive ToM (Pabst, Gautier, & Maurage, Reference Pabst, Gautier and Maurage2022). However, some studies have reported dissociations. For instance, Nandrino et al. (Reference Nandrino, Gandolphe, Alexandre, Kmiecik, Yguel and Urso2014) found that AUD patients performed worse than controls on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, Reference Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste and Plumb2001), a task which is commonly considered to assess affective ToM, while no significant intergroup difference was found on a task assessing cognitive ToM. In the same line, Maurage et al. (Reference Maurage, D'Hondt, de Timary, Mary, Franck and Peyroux2016) found preserved performances for cognitive ToM and impaired performances for affective ToM among recently detoxified AUD patients, using the Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition (Dziobek et al., Reference Dziobek, Fleck, Kalbe, Rogers, Hassenstab, Brand and Convit2006). Altered affective processing has thus been described as a core feature of AUD and may be more severely impaired than the inference of non-emotional mental states (Le Berre, Reference Le Berre2019). Affective and cognitive ToM impairments have been associated with moderate to large effect sizes in meta-analyses and entail tangible repercussions (Bora & Zorlu, Reference Bora and Zorlu2017; Onuoha, Quintana, Lyvers, & Guastella, Reference Onuoha, Quintana, Lyvers and Guastella2016). Their presence considerably increases interpersonal problems and reduces social connectedness (Quednow, Reference Quednow and A.2020). Considering the tight link between social support and drinking outcomes, ToM impairments likely favor problematic drinking behavior and may impede long-term abstinence (Robinson, Fokas, & Witkiewitz, Reference Robinson, Fokas and Witkiewitz2018).

However, as the chronology of these ToM impairments in AUD is still not clearly established (Le Berre, Reference Le Berre2019), we do not yet know whether these impairments solely reflect the impact of alcohol toxicity on brain functioning, or whether they co-occur with or even precede the onset of AUD (Kumar, Skrzynski, & Creswell, Reference Kumar, Skrzynski and Creswell2022b). These two possibilities are not mutually exclusive: ToM impairments may be a consequence of AUD but also a risk factor, with prior ToM difficulties being exacerbated by subsequent alcohol consumption.

Adopting a family history (FH) approach can bring new insights on this question (Nurnberger et al., Reference Nurnberger, Wiegand, Bucholz, O'Connor, Meyer, Reich and Petti2004; Robbins, Gillan, Smith, de Wit, & Ersche, Reference Robbins, Gillan, Smith, de Wit and Ersche2012). An FH of AUD is known to considerably increase an individual's likelihood of developing this disorder (Prescott et al., Reference Prescott, Caldwell, Carey, Vogler, Trumbetta and Gottesman2005; Rangaswamy et al., Reference Rangaswamy, Jones, Porjesz, Chorlian, Padmanabhapillai, Kamarajan and Begleiter2007). This risk is commonly considered to be the reflection of shared genetic and environmental factors within a family (Stoltenberg, Mudd, Blow, & Hill, Reference Stoltenberg, Mudd, Blow and Hill1998). Hence, more frequent alcohol-related problems and higher AUD prevalence rates have been found in individuals with a positive FH of AUD (FH+), compared to those with a negative FH of AUD (FH−) (Hill & O'Brien, Reference Hill and O'Brien2015; Kosty et al., Reference Kosty, Farmer, Seeley, Merikangas, Klein, Gau and Lewinsohn2020).

Regarding the mechanisms which might drive this increased vulnerability for AUD, a large body of research indicates that FH+ individuals demonstrate differences in psychological functioning and altered cognitive performances compared to FH− individuals in various domains such as executive functions (Gierski et al., Reference Gierski, Hubsch, Stefaniak, Benzerouk, Cuervo-Lombard, Bera-Potelle and Limosin2013; Saunders et al., Reference Saunders, Farag, Vincent, Collins, Sorocco and Lovallo2008), working memory (Mackiewicz Seghete, Cservenka, Herting, & Nagel, Reference Mackiewicz Seghete, Cservenka, Herting and Nagel2013; Spadoni, Norman, Schweinsburg, & Tapert, Reference Spadoni, Norman, Schweinsburg and Tapert2008), impulsivity (Khemiri, Franck, & Jayaram-Lindström, Reference Khemiri, Franck and Jayaram-Lindström2022), and reward processing (Yarosh et al., Reference Yarosh, Hyatt, Meda, Jiantonio-Kelly, Potenza, Assaf and Pearlson2014). These alterations were found to be predictive of subsequent AUD development in FH+ individuals (Hill, Steinhauer, Locke-Wellman, & Ulrich, Reference Hill, Steinhauer, Locke-Wellman and Ulrich2009; Nigg et al., Reference Nigg, Wong, Martel, Jester, Puttler, Glass and Zucker2006) and have been consistently linked to neurobiological specificities (see Cservenka, Reference Cservenka2016, for a review), such as gray-matter volume (Dager et al., Reference Dager, McKay, Kent, Curran, Knowles, Sprooten and Glahn2015), white-matter microstructure (Acheson et al., Reference Acheson, Franklin, Cohoon, Glahn, Fox and Lovallo2014), or brain functioning (Amico et al., Reference Amico, Dzemidzic, Oberlin, Carron, Harezlak, Goñi and Kareken2020).

However, there is a dearth of studies to investigate social cognition processes as vulnerability factors for AUD, especially ToM abilities (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Skrzynski and Creswell2022b), despite their major contribution to efficient social functioning (Quednow, Reference Quednow and A.2020). This is even more surprising, given that the few FH studies to have explored social cognition processes have highlighted differences between FH+ and FH− individuals (Cservenka, Reference Cservenka2016; Khemiri et al., Reference Khemiri, Franck and Jayaram-Lindström2022). Indeed, FH+ individuals have been shown to have reduced gray-matter volume in the amygdala, a region involved in emotional learning and social appraisal (Hill et al., Reference Hill, De Bellis, Keshavan, Lowers, Shen, Hall and Pitts2001, Reference Hill, Wang, Carter, McDermott, Zezza and Stiffler2013). In addition, at the neurofunctional level, FH+ adolescents and young adults were found to exhibit blunted brain activation in the superior temporal cortex during the processing of emotional facial expressions during a Go/No-go task (Cservenka, Fair, & Nagel, Reference Cservenka, Fair and Nagel2014), in the amygdala during an emotion-matching task (Glahn, Lovallo, & Fox, Reference Glahn, Lovallo and Fox2007) and in the left inferior frontal cortex during a complex emotion recognition task (Hill et al., Reference Hill, Kostelnik, Holmes, Goradia, McDermott, Diwadkar and Keshavan2007), compared with FH− individuals.

However, even though these studies highlighted differences between FH+ and FH− individuals, several limitations make it hard to draw any definite conclusions regarding the neural correlates of social cognition in individuals at high risk for AUD. First, some FH+ samples included individuals with substance use and other psychiatric disorders. This is problematic, as the inclusion of FH+ individuals who have already developed AUD makes it impossible to disentangle the neural effects of prior vulnerability and those of severe alcohol consumption (Heitzeg, Nigg, Yau, Zubieta, & Zucker, Reference Heitzeg, Nigg, Yau, Zubieta and Zucker2008). Second, FH studies were mostly conducted with children and adolescents, whose brain maturation is still incomplete (Cservenka et al., Reference Cservenka, Fair and Nagel2014; Hulvershorn et al., Reference Hulvershorn, Finn, Hummer, Leibenluft, Ball, Gichina and Anand2013). However, individuals commonly develop AUD in adulthood, mostly between 20 and 40 years of age (Babor et al., Reference Babor, Dolinsky, Meyer, Hesselbrock, Hofmann and Tennen1992; Kapoor et al., Reference Kapoor, Chou, Edenberg, Foroud, Martin, Madden and Agrawal2016). Given the continuous nature of developmental trajectories, the existence of neural differences in FH+ children or adolescents may not be representative of the neural vulnerability at the age when AUD is typically triggered (Quach et al., Reference Quach, Tervo-Clemmens, Foran, Calabro, Chung, Clark and Luna2020). Last, prior studies have always used emotional facial expressions to investigate social cognition processes in FH+ individuals despite the fact that social cognition is a multifaceted construct which is best evaluated through diverse experimental material (Cassel, McDonald, Kelly, & Togher, Reference Cassel, McDonald, Kelly and Togher2019). Hence, limiting FH studies to the decoding of emotional facial expressions hinders a more concise characterization of social cognition processes in FH+ individuals (Etchepare & Prouteau, Reference Etchepare and Prouteau2018). If FH+ individuals display specificities during tasks which require mental state attribution beyond the mere decoding of socio-perceptual cues (i.e. mental state reasoning) remains an unanswered question to date (Thoma, Winter, Juckel, & Roser, Reference Thoma, Winter, Juckel and Roser2013).

The aim of the present study was to address these shortcomings by investigating ToM abilities and their neural underpinnings (i.e. mental state reasoning) in FH+ individuals who were unaffected first-degree relatives (i.e. healthy adults without any substance use or major psychiatric disorder). Furthermore, we decided to focus on the distinction between cognitive and affective ToM which showed specific patterns of impairment in AUD patients and which, to our knowledge, has not yet been investigated among FH+ individuals.

Materials and methods

Participants

We enrolled 60 participants (30 FH+, 30 FH−) in this study. FH+ individuals were unaffected adults who had at least one first-degree family member (father or sibling) with current or past AUD according to DSM-5 criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Having a mother with current or past AUD was an exclusion criterion, to avoid the potential impact of alcohol consumption during pregnancy on neurocognitive functioning. The FH− group was composed of individuals who had no first-degree relative with current or past AUD or substance use disorder (excluding nicotine).

The FH+ and FH− groups were matched on age, sex, and education level, and did not differ on alcohol and nicotine consumption (Table 1). All participants were aged 18-60 years, native French speakers, and right-handed. Exclusion criteria were the presence of any substance use disorder (except nicotine dependence), behavioral addiction, or major neurological or psychiatric disorder with the potential to interfere with brain functioning. Participants had no contraindication for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Exclusion criteria were verified by a trained investigator through a face-to-face interview. All 60 participants met inclusion criteria and completed the entire study.

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of FH+ and FH− participants

FH+, positive family history; FH−, negative family history; NART, National Adult Reading Test; AUDIT, Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test; FTND, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence; FHD, family history density; BDI-13, 13-item Beck Depression Inventory; STAI, State Trait Anxiety Inventory; CTQ, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; TAS, 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale; DIF, difficulty identifying feelings; DDF, difficulty describing feelings; EOT, external-oriented thinking.

Notes: Data are means (standard deviation), unless otherwise specified. Group differences were examined with t tests. Mann–Whitney U tests were used when the normality assumption was violated. Significant p values are highlighted in bold.

a Means were calculated for smokers only (n FH+ = 5, n FH− = 6). Data of one participant were missing for pack years (n FH+ = 5, n FH− = 5).

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, approved by an institutional review board (ID-RCB: 2020-A00784-35) and preregistered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04647422) as part of a larger research project. All participants gave their prior written informed consent and received €70 on completion of the study.

Materials and procedure

Participants underwent two sessions. During the first session, a trained investigator conducted an extensive interview to collect sociodemographic and psychopathological variables (see below). Participants' intellectual abilities were assessed with the French version (Mackinnon & Mulligan, Reference Mackinnon and Mulligan2005) of the National Adult Reading Test, and their handedness with the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (Oldfield, Reference Oldfield1971). In the second session, participants underwent a task-based functional MRI (fMRI) scan. Before each session, breathalyzers were used to ensure the absence of any alcohol consumption prior to testing.

Psychopathology, alcohol, and nicotine use

The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview for DSM-IV was used to assess the presence of common psychiatric disorders, including alcohol misuse and dependence (Sheehan et al., Reference Sheehan, Lecrubier, Sheehan, Amorim, Janavs, Weiller and Dunbar1998). The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT; Gache et al., Reference Gache, Michaud, Landry, Accietto, Arfaoui, Wenger and Daeppen2005) was administered to screen for any problematic alcohol consumption, while the Fagerström test (Heatherton, Kozlowski, Frecker, & Fagerström, Reference Heatherton, Kozlowski, Frecker and Fagerström1991) was used to assess nicotine dependence. The severity of depressive symptoms was assessed with the shortened 13-item Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Collet & Cottraux, Reference Collet and Cottraux1986), and anxiety with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Goruch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, Reference Spielberger, Goruch, Lushene, Vagg and Jacobs1983). The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; Paquette, Laporte, Bigras, & Zoccolillo, Reference Paquette, Laporte, Bigras and Zoccolillo2004) was used to evaluate the presence of five types of childhood trauma: sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby, Taylor, & Parker, Reference Bagby, Taylor and Parker1994) was administered to evaluate alexithymic traits. The TAS-20 yields a total score and three subscores: difficulties identifying feelings (DIF), difficulties describing feelings (DDF), and external-oriented thinking (EOT).

Family history density measure of AUD

FH of alcohol and other substance use was assessed through the Family Informant Schedule and Criteria (FISC) semi-structured interview (Mannuzza, Fyer, Endicott, & Klein, Reference Mannuzza, Fyer, Endicott and Klein1985), designed to assess the presence of AUD and substance use disorder in biological relatives (parents, full siblings, half-siblings, descendants). This information was used to calculate family history density (FHD) scores (see Pandey et al., Reference Pandey, Seay, Meyers, Chorlian, Pandey, Kamarajan and Porjesz2020, for the detailed equation). FHD scores add additional information to any dichotomous FH approach comparing FH+ and FH− individuals by accounting for the number of family members with AUD. FHD is considered an indicator of premorbid AUD vulnerability, and descendants do not increase the risk for AUD from a temporal perspective, thus only non-descendant first-degree relatives (father, full siblings) were included in the equation. It should be noted that data on second-degree relatives (grandparents, aunts/uncles) is not collected with the FISC and was, therefore, not included in the equation.

fMRI task

A previously validated fMRI paradigm was used to assess ToM abilities (Sebastian et al., Reference Sebastian, Fontaine, Bird, Blakemore, De Brito, McCrory and Viding2012; Vucurovic et al., Reference Vucurovic, Raucher-Chéné, Obert, Gobin, Henry, Barrière and Kaladjian2022). Participants were presented with 30 short cartoon stories, each composed of three images. Of these cartoon stories, 10 assessed affective ToM (attribution of emotions to others), 10 assessed cognitive ToM (attribution of intentions to others), and 10 were stories of physical causality (PC) that did not require any mental state attribution (baseline). Each ToM story portrayed two protagonists and required participants to infer how they would feel or react in a social situation. After each story, two response images were displayed, and participants had to select the correct ending for the story by button-press. This task has been extensively described elsewhere (Sebastian et al., Reference Sebastian, Fontaine, Bird, Blakemore, De Brito, McCrory and Viding2012).

fMRI data acquisition

The task was displayed using E-Prime 2.0 software (Psychology Software Tools Inc., Sharpsburg, PA, USA), and trials were arranged in a block design. Imaging was performed on a 3T Siemens Skyra® (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) scanner with a 20-channel head coil. Anatomical whole-brain T1-weighted images, parallel to the AC-PC line with a tilt of −25°, were collected for each participant. These were acquired using a gradient-echo pulse sequence with the following parameters: repetition time (TR) = 2800 ms, echo time (TE) = 6 ms, flip angle = 27°, 36 axial slices, slice thickness = 4 mm, 20% gap, matrix = 256 × 256, field of view (FOV) = 250 mm, reconstruction voxel size = 1 × 1 × 4 mm3. Whole-brain fMRI data were obtained through simultaneous multi-slice echoplanar imaging (SMS-EPI), allowing to achieve shorter TRs. Functional images were acquired with an interleaved-slice 2D-T2-weighted SMS-EPI sequence measuring changes in blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) contrast: TR = 1050 ms, TE = 30 ms, SMS acceleration factor = 2, flip angle = 62°, 36 axial slices, slice thickness = 4 mm, no gap, matrix = 80 × 80, FOV = 240 mm, voxel dimensions = 3 × 3 × 4 mm3. Images were acquired in the same axial plane as the T1-weighted anatomical images. A total of 706 volumes were acquired during a single 12 min run.

fMRI data analysis

Imaging data were analyzed using Statistical Parametric Mapping Version 12 (SPM12; www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm) implemented in MATLAB 2019 (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA). The six initial functional volumes were discarded for T1 stabilization. Preprocessing of imaging data included spatial realignment, slice-time correction, coregistration, segmentation, and normalization to the standard anatomical space of the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI). Functional scans were then spatially smoothed with an isotropic 3D Gaussian kernel of 10 mm FWHM.

Regressors of interest included in the first-level model were the onsets of the cartoon stories for the three conditions: cognitive ToM, affective ToM, and PC (baseline). Visual fixations and instructions were modeled as regressors of no interest. The six realignment parameters were included in the model to account for any variance due to head movement. Data were high-pass filtered at 128 Hz to remove low-frequency drifts.

At the first level, two contrasts of interest tested for significant ToM activation compared with baseline for each participant: cognitive ToM > PC and affective ToM > PC. These contrasts were then taken up to the second level and entered in one-sample t tests testing for brain activations during cognitive and affective ToM processing in the entire sample (FH+ and FH− groups combined) to assess the general effect of condition in the cartoon task. These first-level contrasts were then entered in separate two-sample t tests to directly compare the FH+ and FH− groups. The two-sample t tests were first run without covariables, then depressive symptoms (BDI total score), trait anxiety (STAI-B total score), and childhood trauma (CTQ total score) were included as covariables in the second-level models. In all analyses, clusters reaching a familywise error (FWE) threshold of p < 0.05 were retained and labeled using the third version of the Automated Anatomical Labeling atlas (AAL3; Rolls, Huang, Lin, Feng, & Joliot, Reference Rolls, Huang, Lin, Feng and Joliot2020).

First eigenvariates were extracted at cluster-level for second-level clusters reaching significance in the two-sample t tests including covariates. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to test the association between these first eigenvariates, sociodemographic and clinical variables, FHD scores, alexithymia, and behavioral performances on the cartoon task (total % of correct responses for cognitive and affective ToM stories) in the FH+ group. Bonferroni corrections were applied to p values.

Statistical analyses of behavioral data were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 24; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results were considered significant at p < 0.05.

Results

Group comparison

The demographic and clinical characteristics of the FH+ and FH− groups are displayed in Table 1. They were comparable on age, sex ratio, education level, IQ, and alcohol and nicotine consumption. However, the FH+ group had higher levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms (albeit below the standard cut-off), as well as more frequent childhood trauma compared with the FH− group. According to the CTQ interpretation guidelines, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect were in the low/moderate range for the FH+ group, and the none/minimal range for the FH− group. Physical abuse was in the none/minimal range for both groups. Moreover, the FH+ group displayed higher alexithymic traits and experienced more difficulties in identifying their own feelings than the FH− group.

Behavioral data

Performances on the cartoon task are reported in Table 2. FH+ and FH− groups did not differ on the rate of correct responses for cognitive ToM (p = 0.243), but significantly differed on affective ToM (p = 0.040), with lower performances in the FH+ group. No group difference was observed for PC stories (p = 0.707) and response times for cognitive ToM, affective ToM, and PC did not differ between groups (all ps > 0.170).

Table 2. Behavioral data for the FH+ and FH− groups in the cartoon task: mean (standard deviation)

FH+, positive family history; FH−, negative family history; ToM, theory of mind.

Notes: Group differences were examined with t tests. Mann–Whitney U tests were used when the normality assumption was violated. Significant p values are highlighted in bold.

fMRI data

Effect of condition

Regions reaching cluster-level significance in the one-sample t tests at p < 0.05 (FWE-corrected) testing for brain activations associated with cognitive and affective ToM in the entire sample are included as supplementary material (Supplement S1). Both cognitive and affective ToM were associated with brain activations in the precuneus, middle and superior temporal cortices, temporal poles, and inferior frontal gyrus. However, cognitive ToM processing also elicited neurofunctional changes in the gyrus supramarginalis and the parahippocampal gyrus which were not observed for affective ToM. Conversely, affective ToM elicited more neurofunctional changes in the anterior and midcingulate cortex, and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, contrary to cognitive ToM.

Effect of group

Regions reaching cluster-level significance in the two-sample t tests at p < 0.05 (FWE-corrected) are displayed in Table 3. For the contrast cognitive ToM > PC, no significant clusters were found, indicating no differences in brain activation in the FH+ and FH− groups during cognitive ToM processing compared with baseline. For the contrast affective ToM > PC, the FH+ group showed differences in brain activation in two significant clusters compared with the FH− group (Fig. 1 upper half). The first cluster (C1) comprised parts of the left middle frontal cortex and precentral gyrus and the second cluster (C2) parts of the left insula and inferior frontal cortex (pars triangularis, opercularis, and orbitalis). Whereas these regions were deactivated by the FH− group during affective ToM processing compared with baseline, they were more strongly activated by the FH+ group (Fig. 1 lower half). The reverse contrast testing for decreased brain activation in the FH+ compared to the FH− group during affective ToM processing compared to baseline did not yield any significant results.

Table 3. Higher whole-brain activations for the contrast affective ToM > PC when comparing the FH+ and FH− groups (two-sample t tests)

FH+, positive family history; FH−, negative family history; ToM, theory of mind; PC, physical causality; MFG, middle frontal gyrus; IFG, inferior frontal gyrus; L, left; R, right.

Analyses were run without covariates and controlling for depressive symptoms, anxiety, and childhood trauma.

p FWE-corr = cluster-forming threshold for familywise error. p < 0.001 voxel-wise threshold.

Figure 1. Results from the two-sample t tests without covariates for the contrast affective ToM > PC. Left: The brain activation in the FH+ and FH− groups differed in the left precentral gyrus and middle frontal cortex. Right: The brain activation in the FH+ and FH− groups differed in the left insula and inferior frontal cortex (pars opercularis, orbitalis, and triangularis). The FH+ group had higher activations whilst the FH− group had lower activations during affective ToM processing compared to baseline. The statistics associated with these two-sample t tests are presented in the upper half of Table 3. p FWE-corr < 0.05 cluster-forming threshold for familywise error. p < 0.001 voxel-wise threshold; k = 395. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.

When conducting the same analyses with depressive symptoms, anxiety, and childhood trauma as covariates, higher brain activations for the contrast affective ToM > PC in the FH+ group compared to the FH− group only survived in C2, that is in the cluster comprising parts of the left insula and inferior frontal cortex (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Results from the two-sample t tests showing intergroup differences for the contrast Affective ToM > PC, controlling for depressive symptoms, anxiety, and childhood trauma. The FH+ group had higher activations during affective ToM processing compared to baseline in the left insula and inferior frontal cortex (pars orbitalis and triangularis). The statistics associated with these two-sample t tests are presented in the lower half of Table 3. p FWE-corr < 0.05 cluster-forming threshold for familywise error. p < 0.001 voxel-wise threshold; k = 470.

The SPM T maps of these analyses have been publicly uploaded to Neurovault (Gorgolewski et al., Reference Gorgolewski, Varoquaux, Rivera, Schwarz, Ghosh, Maumet and Margulies2015) and can be accessed via the following link: https://neurovault.org/collections/IZLUJWED/.

Correlational analyses

In the FH+ group, the first-eigenvariate at cluster-level extracted for the C2 cluster controlling for covariates (BDI, STAI, CTQ) was neither significantly correlated with age (p = 0.877), education level (p = 0.693), IQ (p = 0.449), AUDIT (p = 0.471), nor with FHD scores (p = 0.211) (Supplement S2). Moreover, task-performances on the cartoon task (% of correct responses for the cognitive and affective ToM stories) and alexithymia were unrelated to brain activity in the FH+ group (all ps > 0.182).

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to assess the neural correlates of cognitive and affective ToM in first-degree relatives of AUD patients. Even though differences in social cognition may precede or be concomitant with the onset of AUD, no prior study had examined differences in ToM functioning as a potential marker of vulnerability for AUD.

Results indicated that FH+ individuals differed from FH− individuals, at both behavioral and neural levels. At the behavioral level, FH+ individuals had poorer response accuracy in a validated fMRI ToM task, and these difficulties were particularly pronounced for affective ToM given that FH+ and FH− individuals did not differ on the cognitive ToM stories. Importantly, the differences we observed in response accuracy cannot be attributed to more general difficulties during task completion, given that the two groups had equivalent performances in the baseline condition (PC).

In addition, FH+ individuals had higher brain activation than FH− individuals (who showed deactivations) during affective ToM processing compared to baseline in the left precentral gyrus, middle frontal cortex, insula, and inferior frontal cortex, notably in the pars triangularis, opercularis and orbitalis. Importantly, higher brain activation in the left insula and inferior frontal cortex were still observed during affective ToM processing after controlling for depressive symptoms, anxiety, and childhood trauma. Hence, these variables were not able to entirely explain the differential brain activation observed in FH+ individuals and the left insula and inferior frontal cortex seem to be regions which show a specific association with a FH of AUD. Conversely, no differences in neural activation between the FH+ and FH− groups emerged for cognitive ToM processing compared to baseline.

Hence, the behavioral and neural findings of this study are consistent with prior research on AUD highlighting more severe affective v. cognitive ToM impairments in AUD, thereby suggesting that affective ToM plays a preponderant role and that emotional difficulties are core features of this disorder (Le Berre, Reference Le Berre2019; Maurage et al., Reference Maurage, D'Hondt, de Timary, Mary, Franck and Peyroux2016). This similar pattern of dissociation between affective and cognitive ToM abilities in FH+ individuals and AUD patients further strengthens the idea that some ToM specificities may already be present prior to AUD development and may be underpinned by genetic and/or shared environmental factors.

Our behavioral and neural findings indicate that the efficiency and processing mechanisms of affective ToM differ in FH+ individuals. Frontal and insular brain regions have been consistently associated with ToM networks in the literature (Henry et al., Reference Henry, Raucher-Chéné, Obert, Gobin, Vucurovic, Barrière and Kaladjian2021; Mar, Reference Mar2011; Schlaffke et al., Reference Schlaffke, Lissek, Lenz, Juckel, Schultz, Tegenthoff and Brüne2015). The insula allows for the identification of interoceptive cues and is a key region for empathic and mentalizing abilities (Carr, Iacoboni, Dubeau, Mazziotta, & Lenzi, Reference Carr, Iacoboni, Dubeau, Mazziotta and Lenzi2003; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Wu, Egan, Gu, Liu, Gu and Fan2019). It has been suggested that the insula may be crucial for affective ToM and contribute to the understanding of emotions through a mechanism of affective resonance implying the simulation of behavioral and physiological reactions of others by oneself (Corradi-Dell'Acqua et al., Reference Corradi-Dell'Acqua, Ronchi, Thomasson, Bernati, Saj and Vuilleumier2020). The mechanisms associated with this simulation of internal states may differ in FH+ participants and hamper insights into mental states. The presence of higher alexithymic traits in the FH+ group of our study lends further evidence to this hypothesis and indicated compromised abilities in FH+ individuals to identify their own feelings and internal states. Yet, the neural mechanisms underlying ToM processes and the specific role of the insula are still not clearly established in the general population and this hypothesis therefore needs further clarification (Zeng et al., Reference Zeng, Zhao, Zhang, Zhao, Zhao and Lu2020).

Importantly, prior research also revealed neurofunctional differences in the insula and the inferior frontal cortex in individuals at risk for AUD (DeVito et al., Reference DeVito, Meda, Jiantonio, Potenza, Krystal and Pearlson2013) and has highlighted the relevance of an introspective socio-affective network comprising the orbitofrontal cortex, the insula, and the cingulate cortex in AUD development (Hill & O'Brien, Reference Hill and O'Brien2015). Higher activation in the left insula was found in AUD high-risk adolescents during the presentation of emotional words (Heitzeg et al., Reference Heitzeg, Nigg, Yau, Zubieta and Zucker2008). Furthermore, resting-state analyses revealed hyperconnectivity between striatal regions and the inferior frontal cortex, the precentral gyrus, and the insula in FH+ individuals (Ersche et al., Reference Ersche, Meng, Ziauddeen, Stochl, Williams, Bullmore and Robbins2020). Our results take these findings one step further, by showing that brain activation in these regions also differs during affective ToM processing in FH+ v. FH− individuals.

Furthermore, our study allowed to reduce the impact of possible confounding variables (sex, age, education level, alcohol and nicotine consumption, anxiety, depressive symptoms, childhood trauma) through a strict matching procedure and the inclusion of covariates in the analyses. A FH of AUD is known to be associated with a higher risk for AUD through shared genetic and environmental factors. Psychopathological variables, such as anxiety, depression, and childhood trauma have been evoked as factors which might be driving this increased risk (Cheng et al., Reference Cheng, Cui, Zhang, Zhang, Wang, Yuan and Zhou2020; Kisely, Mills, Strathearn, & Najman, Reference Kisely, Mills, Strathearn and Najman2020). Our results indeed indicated more frequent depressive symptoms, anxiety, and childhood trauma in FH+ individuals but also showed that these variables were only partly related to the differences in brain activation between our groups given that a large cluster remained significant after controlling for these variables. A FH of AUD may increase the risk for neurofunctional differences through a combination of multiple genetic and environmental factors.

It would be interesting for future studies to unravel the impact and weight of different genetic and environmental factors regarding ToM difficulties in FH+ individuals and to study their association with AUD development. Studies could for instance explore the genetic variations which contribute to ToM difficulties in this population and should address if the exposure to an AUD first-degree relative during critical developmental periods is particularly harmful for ToM abilities. Variables such as the type of family member affected by AUD (father, sibling, and also mother), a shared living environment and relational closeness may differentially impact ToM functioning in FH+ individuals. In the present sample, FHD scores were unrelated to brain activity in the FH+ group in the follow-up correlational analyses. Differences in brain activation in FH+ participants might hence be present irrespective of the number of first-degree relatives with AUD within a family. However, this finding needs further replication and future studies should use extensive FHD calculation methods considering the presence of AUD in all first and second-degree family members to further explore the relationship between FHD and ToM processing.

Another interesting result was the presence of contrasting brain activation patterns in the FH+ and FH− groups. Whereas the FH+ group displayed higher brain activation in significant regions during affective ToM processing compared with baseline, deactivation of these significant regions was found in the FH− group. There are two possible explanations: first, FH+ individuals may have to recruit additional regions to compensate at least partially for ToM difficulties, in which case higher brain activation could be considered a resiliency factor against AUD (Hulvershorn et al., Reference Hulvershorn, Finn, Hummer, Leibenluft, Ball, Gichina and Anand2013). Second, the activation of these regions may reflect less refined ToM networks in FH+ individuals, in which case the recruitment of additional regions could lead to increased vulnerability for AUD (Ersche et al., Reference Ersche, Meng, Ziauddeen, Stochl, Williams, Bullmore and Robbins2020). Indeed, genetic studies provide heritability estimates of approximately 50% for AUD (Verhulst, Neale, & Kendler, Reference Verhulst, Neale and Kendler2015). Given that FH+ participants share half of their genes with their first-degree family members presenting an AUD, chances are high that they partly inherited existing vulnerability markers. Still, the FH+ participants of this study were healthy adults without AUD or any major psychiatric condition. It is therefore likely that they also possess resiliency factors protecting against AUD development prior to study inclusion. Disentangling vulnerability and resiliency factors in neuroscience studies is not straightforward.

In our study, several arguments seem in favor of the vulnerability hypothesis and need to be highlighted. First, the presence of higher alexithymic traits and lower affective ToM performances at the behavioral level seem to reflect vulnerability markers. Second, the FH+ individuals had higher brain activation, irrespective of task performance, as shown by the follow-up correlational analyses. Third, this reversed pattern of activation and deactivation was already observed in the princeps study of this fMRI ToM task: whilst healthy adolescents more strongly activated parts of the inferior frontal cortex during ToM processing, similar to the FH+ individuals in our study, these regions were deactivated by healthy adults (Sebastian et al., Reference Sebastian, Fontaine, Bird, Blakemore, De Brito, McCrory and Viding2012). The authors interpreted this higher brain activation during adolescence as the reflection of immature ToM networks. We might therefore consider that the neural maturation of ToM networks is compromised in FH+ individuals (Spadoni, Simmons, Yang, & Tapert, Reference Spadoni, Simmons, Yang and Tapert2013). However, these interpretations must be treated with caution and further research is warranted to disentangle vulnerability and resiliency factors for AUD in FH+ participants.

In this context, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, our study was cross-sectional and therefore did not allow us to describe potential changes in ToM processing related to AUD vulnerability. Future studies should use a longitudinal design to determine whether differential neural activations in FH+ participants represent vulnerability or resiliency factors for AUD. Second, our study did not include FH+ individuals whose mother presented AUD to prevent confounding effects of in-utero alcohol consumption. Therefore, future studies are warranted to address the potential genetic and/or environmental contribution of a female parent with AUD to ToM processing and AUD development. In this context, it must be noted that FHD scores vary depending on the type of family members included in the equation and this may have influenced the results of the correlational analyses presented in this study. Third, the sample size of this study may have been insufficient to capture small effect sizes. Future studies should be conducted to replicate these findings with larger sample sizes.

In conclusion, this study is the first to highlight neural and behavioral differences during affective ToM processing in healthy FH+ adults. Given that ToM abilities are crucial for social bonding, ToM difficulties most likely come at a cost, and may impede the establishment of fruitful social relationships (Byom & Mutlu, Reference Byom and Mutlu2013). It is therefore essential to gain a full picture of social cognition abilities in individuals at high risk for AUD, in order to shape prevention programs and ensure that interpersonal problems do not serve as a trigger for AUD (Le Berre, Fama, & Sullivan, Reference Le Berre, Fama and Sullivan2017; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Price, Garcia and Nixon2019). Since AUD is characterized by a wide range of social cognition impairments, investigations of other social cognition processes (e.g. empathy, emotion regulation) in FH+ individuals would be insightful.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291723002854.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the volunteers who participated in this study for their help and collaboration.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne (doctoral fellowship grant to Franca Schmid) and Reims University Hospital (grant no. PHU N-DevX), neither of which exerted any editorial direction or censorship on any part of this article.

Competing interests

None.

Ethical standards

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

References

Abu-Akel, A., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. (2011). Neuroanatomical and neurochemical bases of theory of mind. Neuropsychologia, 49(11), 29712984. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.07.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Acheson, A., Franklin, C., Cohoon, A. J., Glahn, D. C., Fox, P. T., & Lovallo, W. R. (2014). Anomalous temporoparietal activity in individuals with a family history of alcoholism: Studies from the Oklahoma family health patterns project. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 38(6), 16391645. doi: 10.1111/acer.12420CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Amico, E., Dzemidzic, M., Oberlin, B. G., Carron, C. R., Harezlak, J., Goñi, J., & Kareken, D. A. (2020). The disengaging brain: Dynamic transitions from cognitive engagement and alcoholism risk. NeuroImage, 209, 116515. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116515CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Babor, T. F., Dolinsky, Z. S., Meyer, R. E., Hesselbrock, M., Hofmann, M., & Tennen, H. (1992). Types of alcoholics: Concurrent and predictive validity of some common classification schemes. Addiction, 87(10), 14151431. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1992.tb01921.xGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia scale. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1), 3340. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(94)90006-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The ‘reading the mind in the eyes’ test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(2), 241251. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00715CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bora, E., & Zorlu, N. (2017). Social cognition in alcohol use disorder: A meta-analysis. Addiction, 112(1), 4048. doi: 10.1111/add.13486CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byom, L. J., & Mutlu, B. (2013). Theory of mind: Mechanisms, methods, and new directions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 413. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00413CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, L., Iacoboni, M., Dubeau, M.-C., Mazziotta, J. C., & Lenzi, G. L. (2003). Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: A relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(9), 54975502. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0935845100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassel, A., McDonald, S., Kelly, M., & Togher, L. (2019). Learning from the minds of others: A review of social cognition treatments and their relevance to traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 29(1), 2255. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2016.1257435CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, F., Cui, S., Zhang, C., Zhang, L., Wang, L., Yuan, Q., … Zhou, X. (2020). Association between cognitive function and early life experiences in patients with alcohol use disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 792. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00792CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collet, L., & Cottraux, J. (1986). Inventaire abrégé de la dépression de Beck (13 items) : Étude de la validité concurrente avec les échelles de Hamilton et de ralentissement de Widlöcher. L'Encéphale: Revue de Psychiatrie Clinique Biologique et Thérapeutique, 12(2), 7779.Google Scholar
Corradi-Dell'Acqua, C., Ronchi, R., Thomasson, M., Bernati, T., Saj, A., & Vuilleumier, P. (2020). Deficits in cognitive and affective theory of mind relate to dissociated lesion patterns in prefrontal and insular cortex. Cortex, 128, 218233. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.03.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cservenka, A. (2016). Neurobiological phenotypes associated with a family history of alcoholism. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 158, 821. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.10.021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cservenka, A., Fair, D. A., & Nagel, B. J. (2014). Emotional processing and brain activity in youth at high risk for alcoholism. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 38(7), 19121923. doi: 10.1111/acer.12435CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dager, A. D., McKay, D. R., Kent, J. W., Curran, J. E., Knowles, E., Sprooten, E., … Glahn, D. C. (2015). Shared genetic factors influence amygdala volumes and risk for alcoholism. Neuropsychopharmacology, 40(2), 412420. doi: 10.1038/npp.2014.187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVito, E. E., Meda, S. A., Jiantonio, R., Potenza, M. N., Krystal, J. H., & Pearlson, G. D. (2013). Neural correlates of impulsivity in healthy males and females with family histories of alcoholism. Neuropsychopharmacology, 38(10), 18541863. doi: 10.1038/npp.2013.92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dziobek, I., Fleck, S., Kalbe, E., Rogers, K., Hassenstab, J., Brand, M., … Convit, A. (2006). Introducing MASC: A movie for the assessment of social cognition. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(5), 623636. doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0107-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ersche, K. D., Meng, C., Ziauddeen, H., Stochl, J., Williams, G. B., Bullmore, E. T., & Robbins, T. W. (2020). Brain networks underlying vulnerability and resilience to drug addiction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 1525315261. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2002509117CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Etchepare, A., & Prouteau, A. (2018). Toward a two-dimensional model of social cognition in clinical neuropsychology: A systematic review of factor structure studies. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 24(4), 391404. doi: 10.1017/S1355617717001163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frith, C. D. (2008). Social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1499), 20332039. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gache, P., Michaud, P., Landry, U., Accietto, C., Arfaoui, S., Wenger, O., & Daeppen, J.-B. (2005). The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) as a screening tool for excessive drinking in primary care: Reliability and validity of a French version. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 29(11), 20012007. doi: 10.1097/01.alc.0000187034.58955.64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierski, F., Hubsch, B., Stefaniak, N., Benzerouk, F., Cuervo-Lombard, C., Bera-Potelle, C., … Limosin, F. (2013). Executive functions in adult offspring of alcohol-dependent probands: Toward a cognitive endophenotype? Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37, E356E363. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01903.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glahn, D. C., Lovallo, W. R., & Fox, P. T. (2007). Reduced amygdala activation in young adults at high risk of alcoholism: Studies from the Oklahoma family health patterns project. Biological Psychiatry, 61(11), 13061309. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.09.041CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorgolewski, K. J., Varoquaux, G., Rivera, G., Schwarz, Y., Ghosh, S. S., Maumet, C., … Margulies, D. S. (2015). NeuroVault.org: A web-based repository for collecting and sharing unthresholded statistical maps of the human brain. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 9, 8. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2015.00008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grynberg, D., Maurage, P., & Nandrino, J.-L. (2017). Preserved affective sharing but impaired decoding of contextual complex emotions in alcohol dependence. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 41(4), 779785. doi: 10.1111/acer.13330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Happé, F., Cook, J. L., & Bird, G. (2017). The structure of social cognition: In(ter)dependence of sociocognitive processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 243267. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044046CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heatherton, T. F., Kozlowski, L. T., Frecker, R. C., & Fagerström, K. O. (1991). The Fagerström test for nicotine dependence: A revision of the Fagerström tolerance questionnaire. British Journal of Addiction, 86(9), 11191127. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heitzeg, M. M., Nigg, J. T., Yau, W.-Y. W., Zubieta, J.-K., & Zucker, R. A. (2008). Affective circuitry and risk for alcoholism in late adolescence: Differences in frontostriatal responses between vulnerable and resilient children of alcoholic parents. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(3), 414426. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00605.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henry, A., Raucher-Chéné, D., Obert, A., Gobin, P., Vucurovic, K., Barrière, S., … Kaladjian, A. (2021). Investigation of the neural correlates of mentalizing through the Dynamic Inference Task, a new naturalistic task of social cognition. NeuroImage, 243, 118499. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118499CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, S. Y., De Bellis, M. D., Keshavan, M. S., Lowers, L., Shen, S., Hall, J., & Pitts, T. (2001). Right amygdala volume in adolescent and young adult offspring from families at high risk for developing alcoholism. Biological Psychiatry, 49(11), 894905. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01088-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, S. Y., Kostelnik, B., Holmes, B., Goradia, D., McDermott, M., Diwadkar, V., & Keshavan, M. (2007). FMRI BOLD response to the Eyes task in offspring from multiplex alcohol dependence families. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 31(12), 20282035. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00535.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, S. Y., & O'Brien, J. (2015). Psychological and neurobiological precursors of alcohol use disorders in high-risk youth. Current Addiction Reports, 2(2), 104113. doi: 10.1007/s40429-015-0051-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, S. Y., Steinhauer, S. R., Locke-Wellman, J., & Ulrich, R. (2009). Childhood risk factors for young adult substance dependence outcome in offspring from multiplex alcohol dependence families: A prospective study. Biological Psychiatry, 66(8), 750757. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.05.030CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, S. Y., Wang, S., Carter, H., McDermott, M. D., Zezza, N., & Stiffler, S. (2013). Amygdala volume in offspring from multiplex for alcohol dependence families: The moderating influence of childhood environment and 5-HTTLPR variation. Journal of Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Suppl 1, 001. doi: 10.4172/2329-6488.S1-001.Google ScholarPubMed
Hulvershorn, L. A., Finn, P., Hummer, T. A., Leibenluft, E., Ball, B., Gichina, V., & Anand, A. (2013). Cortical activation deficits during facial emotion processing in youth at high risk for the development of substance use disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 131(3), 230237. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.05.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kapoor, M., Chou, Y.-L., Edenberg, H. J., Foroud, T., Martin, N. G., Madden, P. A. F., … Agrawal, A. (2016). Genome-wide polygenic scores for age at onset of alcohol dependence and association with alcohol-related measures. Translational Psychiatry, 6(3), e761e761. doi: 10.1038/tp.2016.27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khemiri, L., Franck, J., & Jayaram-Lindström, N. (2022). Effect of alcohol use disorder family history on cognitive function. Psychological Medicine, 52(4), 757769. doi: 10.1017/S003329172000238XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kisely, S., Mills, R., Strathearn, L., & Najman, J. M. (2020). Does child maltreatment predict alcohol use disorders in young adulthood? A cohort study of linked notifications and survey data. Addiction, 115(1), 6168. doi: 10.1111/add.14794CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosty, D. B., Farmer, R. F., Seeley, J. R., Merikangas, K. R., Klein, D. N., Gau, J. M., … Lewinsohn, P. M. (2020). The number of biological parents with alcohol use disorder histories and risk to offspring through age 30. Addictive Behaviors, 102, 106196. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106196CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, L., Skrzynski, C. J., & Creswell, K. G. (2022a). Meta-analysis of associations between empathy and alcohol use and problems in clinical and non-clinical samples. Addiction, 117(11), 27932804. doi: 10.1111/add.15941CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, L., Skrzynski, C. J., & Creswell, K. G. (2022b). Systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between theory of mind and alcohol problems in non-clinical samples. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 46(11), 19441952. doi: 10.1111/acer.14943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Berre, A.-P. (2019). Emotional processing and social cognition in alcohol use disorder. Neuropsychology, 33(6), 808821. doi: 10.1037/neu0000572CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Berre, A.-P., Fama, R., & Sullivan, E. V. (2017). Executive functions, memory, and social cognitive deficits and recovery in chronic alcoholism: A critical review to inform future research. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 41(8), 14321443. doi: 10.1111/acer.13431CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, B., Price, J. L., Garcia, C. C., & Nixon, S. J. (2019). Emotional face processing among treatment-seeking individuals with alcohol use disorders: Investigating sex differences and relationships with interpersonal functioning. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 54(4), 361369. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agz010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackiewicz Seghete, K. L., Cservenka, A., Herting, M. M., & Nagel, B. J. (2013). Atypical spatial working memory and task-general brain activity in adolescents with a family history of alcoholism. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37(3), 390398. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01948.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackinnon, A., & Mulligan, R. (2005). Estimation de l'intelligence prémorbide chez les francophones. L'Encéphale, 31(1), 3143. doi: 10.1016/S0013-7006(05)82370-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannuzza, S., Fyer, A., Endicott, J., & Klein, D. F. (1985). Family informant schedule and criteria (FISC). New York, NY, USA: New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York Anxiety Disorders Clinic.Google Scholar
Mar, R. A. (2011). The neural bases of social cognition and story comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 103134. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145406CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marinkovic, K., Oscar-Berman, M., Urban, T., O'Reilly, C. E., Howard, J. A., Sawyer, K., & Harris, G. J. (2009). Alcoholism and dampened temporal limbic activation to emotional faces. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 33(11), 18801892. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.01026.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maurage, P., D'Hondt, F., de Timary, P., Mary, C., Franck, N., & Peyroux, E. (2016). Dissociating affective and cognitive theory of mind in recently detoxified alcohol-dependent individuals. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 40(9), 19261934. doi: 10.1111/acer.13155CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maurage, P., Pabst, A., Lannoy, S., D'Hondt, F., de Timary, P., Gaudelus, B., & Peyroux, E. (2021). Tackling heterogeneity: Individual variability of emotion decoding deficits in severe alcohol use disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 279, 299307. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.10.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nandrino, J.-L., Gandolphe, M.-C., Alexandre, C., Kmiecik, E., Yguel, J., & Urso, L. (2014). Cognitive and affective theory of mind abilities in alcohol-dependent patients: The role of autobiographical memory. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 143, 6573. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.07.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigg, J. T., Wong, M. M., Martel, M. M., Jester, J. M., Puttler, L. I., Glass, J. M., … Zucker, R. A. (2006). Poor response inhibition as a predictor of problem drinking and illicit drug use in adolescents at risk for alcoholism and other substance use disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(4), 468475. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000199028.76452.a9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nurnberger, J. I., Wiegand, R., Bucholz, K., O'Connor, S., Meyer, E. T., Reich, T., … Petti, T. (2004). A family study of alcohol dependence: Coaggregation of multiple disorders in relatives of alcohol-dependent probands. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61(12), 12461256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onuoha, R. C., Quintana, D. S., Lyvers, M., & Guastella, A. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of theory of mind in alcohol use disorders. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 51(4), 410415. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agv137CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pabst, A., Gautier, M., & Maurage, P. (2022). Tasks and investigated components in social cognition research among adults with alcohol use disorder: A critical scoping review. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 36(8), 9991011. doi: 10.1037/adb0000874CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandey, G., Seay, M. J., Meyers, J. L., Chorlian, D. B., Pandey, A. K., Kamarajan, C., … Porjesz, B. (2020). Density and dichotomous family history measures of alcohol use disorder as predictors of behavioral and neural phenotypes: A comparative study across gender and race/ethnicity. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 44(3), 697710. doi: 10.1111/acer.14280CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paquette, D., Laporte, L., Bigras, M., & Zoccolillo, M. (2004). Validation de la version française du CTQ et prévalence de l'histoire de maltraitance 1. Santé mentale au Québec, 29(1), 201220. doi: 10.7202/008831arCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515526. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00076512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott, C. A., Caldwell, C. B., Carey, G., Vogler, G. P., Trumbetta, S. L., & Gottesman, I. I. (2005). The Washington University twin study of alcoholism. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 134B(1), 4855. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.b.30124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quach, A., Tervo-Clemmens, B., Foran, W., Calabro, F. J., Chung, T., Clark, D. B., & Luna, B. (2020). Adolescent development of inhibitory control and substance use vulnerability: A longitudinal neuroimaging study. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 42, 100771. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100771CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quednow, B. B. (2020). Social cognition in addiction. In A., Verdejo-Garcia (Ed.), Cognition and addiction: A researcher’s guide from mechanisms towards interventions (pp. 6378). London: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815298-0.00005-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rangaswamy, M., Jones, K. A., Porjesz, B., Chorlian, D. B., Padmanabhapillai, A., Kamarajan, C., … Begleiter, H. (2007). Delta and theta oscillations as risk markers in adolescent offspring of alcoholics. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63(1), 315. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.10.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robbins, T. W., Gillan, C. M., Smith, D. G., de Wit, S., & Ersche, K. D. (2012). Neurocognitive endophenotypes of impulsivity and compulsivity: Towards dimensional psychiatry. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(1), 8191. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.11.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, C. S. H., Fokas, K., & Witkiewitz, K. (2018). Relationship between empathic processing and drinking behavior in project MATCH. Addictive Behaviors, 77, 180186. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.10.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rolls, E. T., Huang, C.-C., Lin, C.-P., Feng, J., & Joliot, M. (2020). Automated anatomical labelling atlas 3. NeuroImage, 206, 116189. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116189CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rupp, C. I., Derntl, B., Osthaus, F., Kemmler, G., & Fleischhacker, W. W. (2017). Impact of social cognition on alcohol dependence treatment outcome: Poorer facial emotion recognition predicts relapse/dropout. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 41(12), 21972206. doi: 10.1111/acer.13522CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saunders, B., Farag, N., Vincent, A. S., Collins, F. L., Sorocco, K. H., & Lovallo, W. R. (2008). Impulsive errors on a Go-NoGo reaction time task: Disinhibitory traits in relation to a family history of alcoholism. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(5), 888894. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00648.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlaffke, L., Lissek, S., Lenz, M., Juckel, G., Schultz, T., Tegenthoff, M., … Brüne, M. (2015). Shared and nonshared neural networks of cognitive and affective theory-of-mind: A neuroimaging study using cartoon picture stories. Human Brain Mapping, 36(1), 2939. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22610CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebastian, C. L., Fontaine, N. M. G., Bird, G., Blakemore, S.-J., De Brito, S. A., McCrory, E. J. P., & Viding, E. (2012). Neural processing associated with cognitive and affective theory of mind in adolescents and adults. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(1), 5363. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsr023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheehan, D. V., Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, K. H., Amorim, P., Janavs, J., Weiller, E., … Dunbar, G. C. (1998). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59(Suppl 20), 2257.Google ScholarPubMed
Spadoni, A. D., Norman, A. L., Schweinsburg, A. D., & Tapert, S. F. (2008). Effects of family history of alcohol use disorders on spatial working memory BOLD response in adolescents. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 32(7), 11351145. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00694.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spadoni, A. D., Simmons, A. N., Yang, T. T., & Tapert, S. F. (2013). Family history of alcohol use disorders and neuromaturation: A functional connectivity study with adolescents. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 39(6), 356364. doi: 10.3109/00952990.2013.818680CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spielberger, C. D., Goruch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the state-trait inventory STAI. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Stoltenberg, S. F., Mudd, S. A., Blow, F. C., & Hill, E. M. (1998). Evaluating measures of family history of alcoholism: Density versus dichotomy. Addiction, 93(10), 15111520. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.931015117.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thoma, P., Winter, N., Juckel, G., & Roser, P. (2013). Mental state decoding and mental state reasoning in recently detoxified alcohol-dependent individuals. Psychiatry Research, 205(3), 232240. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.08.042CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trick, L., Kempton, M. J., Williams, S. C. R., & Duka, T. (2014). Impaired fear recognition and attentional setshifting is associated with brain structural changes in alcoholic patients. Addiction Biology, 19(6), 10411054. doi: 10.1111/adb.12175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verhulst, B., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2015). The heritability of alcohol use disorders: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Medicine, 45(5), 10611072. doi: 10.1017/S0033291714002165CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vucurovic, K., Raucher-Chéné, D., Obert, A., Gobin, P., Henry, A., Barrière, S., … Kaladjian, A. (2022). Activation of the left medial temporal gyrus and adjacent brain areas during affective theory of mind processing correlates with trait schizotypy in a nonclinical population. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 18(1), nsac051. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsac051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X., Wu, Q., Egan, L., Gu, X., Liu, P., Gu, H., … Fan, J. (2019). Anterior insular cortex plays a critical role in interoceptive attention. ELife, 8, e42265. doi: 10.7554/eLife.42265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarosh, H. L., Hyatt, C. J., Meda, S. A., Jiantonio-Kelly, R., Potenza, M. N., Assaf, M., & Pearlson, G. (2014). Relationships between reward sensitivity, risk-taking and family history of alcoholism during an interactive competitive fMRI task. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e88188. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeng, Y., Zhao, Y., Zhang, T., Zhao, D., Zhao, F., & Lu, E. (2020). A brain-inspired model of theory of mind. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 14, 60. doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2020.00060CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of FH+ and FH− participants

Figure 1

Table 2. Behavioral data for the FH+ and FH− groups in the cartoon task: mean (standard deviation)

Figure 2

Table 3. Higher whole-brain activations for the contrast affective ToM > PC when comparing the FH+ and FH− groups (two-sample t tests)

Figure 3

Figure 1. Results from the two-sample t tests without covariates for the contrast affective ToM > PC. Left: The brain activation in the FH+ and FH− groups differed in the left precentral gyrus and middle frontal cortex. Right: The brain activation in the FH+ and FH− groups differed in the left insula and inferior frontal cortex (pars opercularis, orbitalis, and triangularis). The FH+ group had higher activations whilst the FH− group had lower activations during affective ToM processing compared to baseline. The statistics associated with these two-sample t tests are presented in the upper half of Table 3. pFWE-corr < 0.05 cluster-forming threshold for familywise error. p < 0.001 voxel-wise threshold; k = 395. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.

Figure 4

Figure 2. Results from the two-sample t tests showing intergroup differences for the contrast Affective ToM > PC, controlling for depressive symptoms, anxiety, and childhood trauma. The FH+ group had higher activations during affective ToM processing compared to baseline in the left insula and inferior frontal cortex (pars orbitalis and triangularis). The statistics associated with these two-sample t tests are presented in the lower half of Table 3. pFWE-corr < 0.05 cluster-forming threshold for familywise error. p < 0.001 voxel-wise threshold; k = 470.

Supplementary material: File

Schmid et al. supplementary material

Schmid et al. supplementary material
Download Schmid et al. supplementary material(File)
File 39.1 KB