Neural correlates of altered reward-driven attention in chronic pain and opioid use

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1. IFG and LOC Reward Task Responses and LOC-IFG Gain Anticipation Functional Connectivity. (A) Contrast beta values extracted from the bilateral IFG ROI during gain anticipation (GVNant, +$5 > $0 trials). (B) Contrast beta values extracted from the bilateral IFG ROI during non-punishment outcome (NVLout; -$5 hit vs. miss). (C) Contrast beta values extracted from the LOC ROI during gain anticipation (GVNant, +$5 > $0 trials). (D) Contrast beta values extracted from the bilateral LOC ROI during non-punishment outcome (NVLout; -$5 hit vs. miss). (E) A significant group difference in the LOC-IFG connectivity during gain anticipation ($5 trials) (p < 0.05, FDR corrected). All beta values are shown as 10− 3. Abbreviation: FDR, false discovery rate; FM, fibromyalgia; IFG, inferior frontal gyrus; LOC, lateral occipital cortex; ROI, region of interest.

• 

  Fig. 2. Brain – Behavioral Correlation Analyses. (A) Primary correlational analysis between LOC-IFG connectivity and RT in controls, non-opioid patients, and opioid patients (left to right). A negative correlation was observed in the opioid group (significant, corrected p < 0.0125) and in the control group (not significant, corrected). No relationship was observed in the non-opioid group. (B) Results from an exploratory (i.e., uncorrected, p values reported for descriptive purposes only) correlational analysis between LOC-IFG connectivity and accuracy rate. Control and opioid patient groups showed a positive relationship (p < 0.05, uncorrected), but no relationship was observed in the non-opioid patient group. Abbreviation: FM, fibromyalgia; IFG, inferior frontal gyrus; LOC, lateral occipital cortex; RT, reaction time.

• 

  Fig. 3. Structure of Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) Task. Example of potential gain and loss trials in the MID task. Each trial consisted of specific time periods, with trial periods TR-locked (TR = 2 s). The sequence was as follows: TR 1 represented the cue phase (anticipation), TR 2 was the fixation phase (anticipation), TR 3 indicated the target phase, TR 4 denoted the feedback phase (outcome), and TR(s) 5 to 7 represented a variable duration inter-trial interval. During the cue presentation, either circle (indicating potential gains) or square (indicating potential losses) was presented, accompanied by monetary values beneath the respective shapes. After this phase, a fixation mark was lasted for 2 s, initiating the subsequent target phase. During the target phase, a triangle was presented for a variable duration, usually averaging around 265 milliseconds. This duration was determined based on the participant’s prior response accuracy to achieve an average hit rate of 66%. At the end of each trial, feedback in the form of win/loss feedback was provided, indicating the monetary gain or loss. Following the feedback phase, a black screen to separate subsequent trials was presented, and…

• 

  Fig. 4. Regions of Interest. The ROI masks were created using “Functional ROIs” provided by the FIND Lab at Stanford University (Shirer et al., 2012; https://greiciuslab.stanford.edu/resources). (A) Location of the bilateral IFG ROI. (B) Location of the bilateral LOC ROI. (C) Location of the “Visuospatial” network. (D) Location of the “ventral_DMN” network. Abbreviation: DMN, default mode network; IFG, inferior frontal gyrus; LOC, lateral occipital cortex; ROI, region of interest.