Effects of Family History of Alcoholism and Sex on Alcohol Analgesia
Conditions
Keywords
alcohol effects, pain
Brief summary
Self-medication of pain with alcohol is a common, yet risky, behavior. Evidence suggests family history of alcoholism may affect the degree to which alcohol use relieves pain, but the independent contributions of expectation and conditioning have not been previously studied. Interactive effects of sex and family history are also currently unclear. This project addresses this gap in knowledge and will inform further research and clinical/translational efforts for reducing risk associated with these behaviors.
Interventions
DRUGEthanol
A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL.
OTHERPlacebo
A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration.
Sponsors
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
University of Florida
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Intervention model description
Participants will receive an active oral dose of alcohol or placebo in a counterbalanced manner.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to 45 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
\- Consume at least 1 drink/month over the past 6 months
Exclusion criteria
* History of chronic pain * Current use of opioids * Current major depression * History of any psychotic disorder * Undercontrolled hypertension or diabetes * History of neurologic disease * History of serious medical illness * History of drug or alcohol dependence, including nicotine, or a pattern of hazardous alcohol use * Safety concerns related to MRI (for example, implants or pacing devices)
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Heat Pain Threshold | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Temperature of heat stimulus applied to the foot at which participant reports pain. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings anchored from no pain at all/not at all unpleasant to most intense/unpleasant imaginable will be collected. |
| Heat Pain Tolerance | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Temperature of heat stimulus applied to the foot at which participant no longer tolerates pain. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings anchored from no pain at all/not at all unpleasant to most intense/unpleasant imaginable will be collected. |
| Heat Pain Intensity Ratings | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Participant perception of pain at a temperature producing a pain rating of approximately 5 out of 10 at baseline. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity ratings ranging from 0-100 and anchored from no pain at all to most intense imaginable will be collected. Higher values reflect ratings of more intense pain. |
| Perceived Pain Relief | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Rating of relief from pain associated with consumption of the study beverage. This is a VAS (visual analogue scale) assessing perceived pain relief ranging from 0-100 and anchored from No relief at all to Most profound relief imaginable. Higher scores reflect greater perception of pain relief. |
| Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Pain-related activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
| Hypothalamus Activation | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours | Pain-related activation in the hypothalamus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
| Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Pain-related activation in the medial prefrontal cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
| Nucleus Accumbens Activation | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Pain-related activation in the nucleus accumbens associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
| Periaqueductal Gray Activation | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Pain-related activation in the periaqueductal gray associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
| Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Pain-related activation in the anterior cingulate cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
| Amgydala Activation | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Pain-related activation in the amygdala associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
| Hippocampus Activation | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Pain-related activation in the hippocampus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
| Insula Activation | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Pain-related activation in the insula associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
| Postcentral Gyrus Activation | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Pain-related activation in the postcentral gyrus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
| Thalamus Activation | Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.) | Pain-related activation in the thalamus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men Men reporting at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems.
Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL.
Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. | 22 |
| Family History Negative Men Men who do not report having a parent with a history of alcohol problems.
Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL.
Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. | 31 |
| Family History Positive Women Women reporting at least one parent with a history of alcohol problems.
Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL.
Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. | 30 |
| Family History Negative Women Women who do not report having a parent with a history of alcohol problems.
Ethanol: A beverage containing dose of ethanol individually determined to raise a participant's breath alcohol concentration up to approximately 0.08 g/dL.
Placebo: A beverage that does not meaningfully increase breath alcohol concentration. | 42 |
| Total | 125 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Family History Positive Men | Family History Negative Men | Family History Positive Women | Family History Negative Women | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 27.09 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.83 | 27.23 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.64 | 25.13 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.12 | 26.19 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.4 | 25.75 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.29 |
| Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test | 4.45 total score STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.09 | 4.68 total score STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.45 | 4.70 total score STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.99 | 4.64 total score STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.61 | 4.63 total score STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.74 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 3 Participants | 5 Participants | 8 Participants | 11 Participants | 27 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 18 Participants | 26 Participants | 22 Participants | 31 Participants | 97 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Expectancies for Alcohol Analgesia | 35.64 average score STANDARD_DEVIATION 26.2 | 44.46 average score STANDARD_DEVIATION 22.78 | 46.81 average score STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.4 | 42.53 average score STANDARD_DEVIATION 23.27 | 42.82 average score STANDARD_DEVIATION 22.68 |
| Max Quantity | 4.54 oz. absolute ethanol STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.66 | 5.05 oz. absolute ethanol STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.51 | 4.33 oz. absolute ethanol STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.5 | 4.16 oz. absolute ethanol STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.11 | 4.49 oz. absolute ethanol STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.41 |
| Quantity-Frequency Index | .55 oz. absolute ethanol consumed per day STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.4 | .47 oz. absolute ethanol consumed per day STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.27 | .44 oz. absolute ethanol consumed per day STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.32 | .44 oz. absolute ethanol consumed per day STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.27 | .47 oz. absolute ethanol consumed per day STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.31 |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 1 Participants | 3 Participants | 3 Participants | 5 Participants | 12 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 2 Participants | 2 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 17 Participants | 26 Participants | 24 Participants | 35 Participants | 102 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 22 participants | 31 participants | 30 participants | 42 participants | 125 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 30 Participants | 42 Participants | 72 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 22 Participants | 31 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 53 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk | EG004 affected / at risk | EG005 affected / at risk | EG006 affected / at risk | EG007 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 22 | 0 / 31 | 0 / 30 | 0 / 42 | 0 / 22 | 0 / 31 | 0 / 30 | 0 / 42 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 22 | 0 / 31 | 0 / 30 | 0 / 42 | 0 / 22 | 0 / 31 | 0 / 30 | 0 / 42 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 22 | 0 / 31 | 0 / 30 | 0 / 42 | 0 / 22 | 0 / 31 | 0 / 30 | 0 / 42 |
Outcome results
Primary
Amgydala Activation
Pain-related activation in the amygdala associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Amgydala Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.155 beta weight | Standard Error 0.055 |
| Family History Positive Men | Amgydala Activation | Placebo Condition | -.050 beta weight | Standard Error 0.048 |
| Family History Negative Men | Amgydala Activation | Placebo Condition | -.007 beta weight | Standard Error 0.04 |
| Family History Negative Men | Amgydala Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.039 beta weight | Standard Error 0.046 |
| Family History Positive Women | Amgydala Activation | Placebo Condition | .011 beta weight | Standard Error 0.046 |
| Family History Positive Women | Amgydala Activation | Alcohol Condition | .013 beta weight | Standard Error 0.052 |
| Family History Negative Women | Amgydala Activation | Placebo Condition | -.054 beta weight | Standard Error 0.038 |
| Family History Negative Women | Amgydala Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.061 beta weight | Standard Error 0.044 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.5ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.28ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.6ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.04ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.25ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.89ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.26ANOVA
Primary
Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation
Pain-related activation in the anterior cingulate cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | .020 beta weight | Standard Error 0.046 |
| Family History Positive Men | Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | .049 beta weight | Standard Error 0.044 |
| Family History Negative Men | Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | .038 beta weight | Standard Error 0.037 |
| Family History Negative Men | Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | .045 beta weight | Standard Error 0.038 |
| Family History Positive Women | Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | .082 beta weight | Standard Error 0.044 |
| Family History Positive Women | Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | .066 beta weight | Standard Error 0.042 |
| Family History Negative Women | Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | .040 beta weight | Standard Error 0.037 |
| Family History Negative Women | Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | .080 beta weight | Standard Error 0.035 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.32ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.99ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.83ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.75ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.62ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.92ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.39ANOVA
Primary
Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation
Pain-related activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.01 beta weight | Standard Error 0.054 |
| Family History Positive Men | Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | .099 beta weight | Standard Error 0.047 |
| Family History Negative Men | Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | .019 beta weight | Standard Error 0.039 |
| Family History Negative Men | Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.02 beta weight | Standard Error 0.045 |
| Family History Positive Women | Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | .04 beta weight | Standard Error 0.051 |
| Family History Positive Women | Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | .082 beta weight | Standard Error 0.044 |
| Family History Negative Women | Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | .097 beta weight | Standard Error 0.043 |
| Family History Negative Women | Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | .115 beta weight | Standard Error 0.037 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.66ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.41ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.39ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.22ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.06ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.99ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.09ANOVA
Primary
Heat Pain Intensity Ratings
Participant perception of pain at a temperature producing a pain rating of approximately 5 out of 10 at baseline. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity ratings ranging from 0-100 and anchored from no pain at all to most intense imaginable will be collected. Higher values reflect ratings of more intense pain.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Heat Pain Intensity Ratings | Alcohol Condition | 25.58 units on a VAS | Standard Error 3.43 |
| Family History Positive Men | Heat Pain Intensity Ratings | Placebo Condition | 28.41 units on a VAS | Standard Error 3.37 |
| Family History Negative Men | Heat Pain Intensity Ratings | Placebo Condition | 25.76 units on a VAS | Standard Error 2.75 |
| Family History Negative Men | Heat Pain Intensity Ratings | Alcohol Condition | 25.48 units on a VAS | Standard Error 2.81 |
| Family History Positive Women | Heat Pain Intensity Ratings | Alcohol Condition | 24.51 units on a VAS | Standard Error 2.98 |
| Family History Positive Women | Heat Pain Intensity Ratings | Placebo Condition | 24.07 units on a VAS | Standard Error 2.9 |
| Family History Negative Women | Heat Pain Intensity Ratings | Alcohol Condition | 27.11 units on a VAS | Standard Error 2.64 |
| Family History Negative Women | Heat Pain Intensity Ratings | Placebo Condition | 24.92 units on a VAS | Standard Error 2.58 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.83ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.12ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.25ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.58ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.9ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.95ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.68ANOVA
Primary
Heat Pain Threshold
Temperature of heat stimulus applied to the foot at which participant reports pain. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings anchored from no pain at all/not at all unpleasant to most intense/unpleasant imaginable will be collected.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Heat Pain Threshold | Alcohol Condition | 43.56 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.38 |
| Family History Positive Men | Heat Pain Threshold | Placebo Condition | 43.20 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.386 |
| Family History Negative Men | Heat Pain Threshold | Placebo Condition | 43.43 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.315 |
| Family History Negative Men | Heat Pain Threshold | Alcohol Condition | 43.63 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.311 |
| Family History Positive Women | Heat Pain Threshold | Alcohol Condition | 42.28 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.328 |
| Family History Positive Women | Heat Pain Threshold | Placebo Condition | 41.98 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.33 |
| Family History Negative Women | Heat Pain Threshold | Alcohol Condition | 43.94 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.288 |
| Family History Negative Women | Heat Pain Threshold | Placebo Condition | 43.75 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.29 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.92ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.92ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.61Chi-squared
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.01ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.003ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.12ANOVA
Primary
Heat Pain Tolerance
Temperature of heat stimulus applied to the foot at which participant no longer tolerates pain. VAS (visual analogue scale) pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings anchored from no pain at all/not at all unpleasant to most intense/unpleasant imaginable will be collected.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Heat Pain Tolerance | Alcohol Condition | 48.33 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.331 |
| Family History Positive Men | Heat Pain Tolerance | Placebo Condition | 48.18 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.339 |
| Family History Negative Men | Heat Pain Tolerance | Placebo Condition | 47.95 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.277 |
| Family History Negative Men | Heat Pain Tolerance | Alcohol Condition | 48.13 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.27 |
| Family History Positive Women | Heat Pain Tolerance | Alcohol Condition | 46.65 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.285 |
| Family History Positive Women | Heat Pain Tolerance | Placebo Condition | 46.57 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.29 |
| Family History Negative Women | Heat Pain Tolerance | Alcohol Condition | 47.50 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.25 |
| Family History Negative Women | Heat Pain Tolerance | Placebo Condition | 47.68 degrees celsius | Standard Error 0.257 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.38ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.27ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.7ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.03ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.14ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: <0.001ANOVA
Primary
Hippocampus Activation
Pain-related activation in the hippocampus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Hippocampus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.154 beta weight | Standard Error 0.048 |
| Family History Positive Men | Hippocampus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.074 beta weight | Standard Error 0.046 |
| Family History Negative Men | Hippocampus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.083 beta weight | Standard Error 0.039 |
| Family History Negative Men | Hippocampus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.130 beta weight | Standard Error 0.041 |
| Family History Positive Women | Hippocampus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.116 beta weight | Standard Error 0.046 |
| Family History Positive Women | Hippocampus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.145 beta weight | Standard Error 0.044 |
| Family History Negative Women | Hippocampus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.128 beta weight | Standard Error 0.039 |
| Family History Negative Women | Hippocampus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.158 beta weight | Standard Error 0.037 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.76ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.09ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.76ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.77ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.52ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.93ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.42ANOVA
Primary
Hypothalamus Activation
Pain-related activation in the hypothalamus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Hypothalamus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.096 beta weight | Standard Error 0.0449 |
| Family History Positive Men | Hypothalamus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.083 beta weight | Standard Error 0.047 |
| Family History Negative Men | Hypothalamus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.047 beta weight | Standard Error 0.041 |
| Family History Negative Men | Hypothalamus Activation | Placebo Condition | .018 beta weight | Standard Error 0.04 |
| Family History Positive Women | Hypothalamus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.023 beta weight | Standard Error 0.045 |
| Family History Positive Women | Hypothalamus Activation | Alcohol Condition | .007 beta weight | Standard Error 0.046 |
| Family History Negative Women | Hypothalamus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.022 beta weight | Standard Error 0.038 |
| Family History Negative Women | Hypothalamus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.036 beta weight | Standard Error 0.039 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.55ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.36ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.36ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.17ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.55ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.43ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.33ANOVA
Primary
Insula Activation
Pain-related activation in the insula associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Insula Activation | Alcohol Condition | .220 beta weight | Standard Error 0.054 |
| Family History Positive Men | Insula Activation | Placebo Condition | .389 beta weight | Standard Error 0.055 |
| Family History Negative Men | Insula Activation | Placebo Condition | .298 beta weight | Standard Error 0.046 |
| Family History Negative Men | Insula Activation | Alcohol Condition | .286 beta weight | Standard Error 0.045 |
| Family History Positive Women | Insula Activation | Alcohol Condition | .270 beta weight | Standard Error 0.051 |
| Family History Positive Women | Insula Activation | Placebo Condition | .329 beta weight | Standard Error 0.052 |
| Family History Negative Women | Insula Activation | Alcohol Condition | .318 beta weight | Standard Error 0.043 |
| Family History Negative Women | Insula Activation | Placebo Condition | .312 beta weight | Standard Error 0.044 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.44ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.27ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.06ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.73ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.047ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.97ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.82ANOVA
Primary
Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation
Pain-related activation in the medial prefrontal cortex associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.173 beta weight | Standard Error 0.081 |
| Family History Positive Men | Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | -.183 beta weight | Standard Error 0.075 |
| Family History Negative Men | Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | -.201 beta weight | Standard Error 0.063 |
| Family History Negative Men | Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.163 beta weight | Standard Error 0.068 |
| Family History Positive Women | Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.096 beta weight | Standard Error 0.077 |
| Family History Positive Women | Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | -.189 beta weight | Standard Error 0.072 |
| Family History Negative Women | Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.173 beta weight | Standard Error 0.065 |
| Family History Negative Women | Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activation | Placebo Condition | -.15 beta weight | Standard Error 0.06 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.34ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.88ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.56ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.9ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.45ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.85ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.64ANOVA
Primary
Nucleus Accumbens Activation
Pain-related activation in the nucleus accumbens associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Nucleus Accumbens Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.037 beta weight | Standard Error 0.041 |
| Family History Positive Men | Nucleus Accumbens Activation | Placebo Condition | .091 beta weight | Standard Error 0.043 |
| Family History Negative Men | Nucleus Accumbens Activation | Placebo Condition | .103 beta weight | Standard Error 0.036 |
| Family History Negative Men | Nucleus Accumbens Activation | Alcohol Condition | .055 beta weight | Standard Error 0.034 |
| Family History Positive Women | Nucleus Accumbens Activation | Placebo Condition | .092 beta weight | Standard Error 0.041 |
| Family History Positive Women | Nucleus Accumbens Activation | Alcohol Condition | .075 beta weight | Standard Error 0.039 |
| Family History Negative Women | Nucleus Accumbens Activation | Placebo Condition | .155 beta weight | Standard Error 0.034 |
| Family History Negative Women | Nucleus Accumbens Activation | Alcohol Condition | .131 beta weight | Standard Error 0.033 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.3ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.11ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.39ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.89ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.01ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.08ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.06ANOVA
Primary
Perceived Pain Relief
Rating of relief from pain associated with consumption of the study beverage. This is a VAS (visual analogue scale) assessing perceived pain relief ranging from 0-100 and anchored from No relief at all to Most profound relief imaginable. Higher scores reflect greater perception of pain relief.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Perceived Pain Relief | Placebo Condition | 13.63 units on a VAS | Standard Error 3.75 |
| Family History Positive Men | Perceived Pain Relief | Alcohol Condition | 33.44 units on a VAS | Standard Error 4.41 |
| Family History Negative Men | Perceived Pain Relief | Alcohol Condition | 32.18 units on a VAS | Standard Error 3.6 |
| Family History Negative Men | Perceived Pain Relief | Placebo Condition | 13.76 units on a VAS | Standard Error 3.06 |
| Family History Positive Women | Perceived Pain Relief | Alcohol Condition | 35.64 units on a VAS | Standard Error 3.78 |
| Family History Positive Women | Perceived Pain Relief | Placebo Condition | 14.83 units on a VAS | Standard Error 3.22 |
| Family History Negative Women | Perceived Pain Relief | Placebo Condition | 11.61 units on a VAS | Standard Error 2.83 |
| Family History Negative Women | Perceived Pain Relief | Alcohol Condition | 37.60 units on a VAS | Standard Error 3.34 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.36ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.24ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.6ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.99ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: <0.001ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.84ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.59ANOVA
Primary
Periaqueductal Gray Activation
Pain-related activation in the periaqueductal gray associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Periaqueductal Gray Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.162 beta weight | Standard Error 0.063 |
| Family History Positive Men | Periaqueductal Gray Activation | Placebo Condition | .012 beta weight | Standard Error 0.069 |
| Family History Negative Men | Periaqueductal Gray Activation | Placebo Condition | -.038 beta weight | Standard Error 0.058 |
| Family History Negative Men | Periaqueductal Gray Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.089 beta weight | Standard Error 0.053 |
| Family History Positive Women | Periaqueductal Gray Activation | Alcohol Condition | .055 beta weight | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Family History Positive Women | Periaqueductal Gray Activation | Placebo Condition | .036 beta weight | Standard Error 0.066 |
| Family History Negative Women | Periaqueductal Gray Activation | Alcohol Condition | .052 beta weight | Standard Error 0.05 |
| Family History Negative Women | Periaqueductal Gray Activation | Placebo Condition | .059 beta weight | Standard Error 0.055 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.29ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.1ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.49ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.99ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.13ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.82ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.02ANOVA
Primary
Postcentral Gyrus Activation
Pain-related activation in the postcentral gyrus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Postcentral Gyrus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.053 beta weight | Standard Error 0.048 |
| Family History Positive Men | Postcentral Gyrus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.139 beta weight | Standard Error 0.046 |
| Family History Negative Men | Postcentral Gyrus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.038 beta weight | Standard Error 0.039 |
| Family History Negative Men | Postcentral Gyrus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.085 beta weight | Standard Error 0.041 |
| Family History Positive Women | Postcentral Gyrus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.048 beta weight | Standard Error 0.046 |
| Family History Positive Women | Postcentral Gyrus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.068 beta weight | Standard Error 0.044 |
| Family History Negative Women | Postcentral Gyrus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.077 beta weight | Standard Error 0.039 |
| Family History Negative Women | Postcentral Gyrus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.041 beta weight | Standard Error 0.37 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.45ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.59ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.07ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.61ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.82ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.63ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.55ANOVA
Primary
Thalamus Activation
Pain-related activation in the thalamus associated with application of painful heat vs. non-noxious warmth to the bottom of the right foot during fMRI acquisition. Scores are beta-weights associated with fit of activity within the region to activity predicted by convolving the canonical hemodynamic response function with the heat pain stimulus paradigm assessed using general linear modeling. Positive beta weights reflect activation associated with the stimulus paradigm, while negative beta weights reflect deactivation.
Time frame: Day 1; Day 2 (Laboratory sessions will be separated by at least 48 hours.)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family History Positive Men | Thalamus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.141 beta weight | Standard Error 0.059 |
| Family History Positive Men | Thalamus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.033 beta weight | Standard Error 0.053 |
| Family History Negative Men | Thalamus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.027 beta weight | Standard Error 0.044 |
| Family History Negative Men | Thalamus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.076 beta weight | Standard Error 0.049 |
| Family History Positive Women | Thalamus Activation | Alcohol Condition | .023 beta weight | Standard Error 0.056 |
| Family History Positive Women | Thalamus Activation | Placebo Condition | .066 beta weight | Standard Error 0.05 |
| Family History Negative Women | Thalamus Activation | Alcohol Condition | -.022 beta weight | Standard Error 0.047 |
| Family History Negative Women | Thalamus Activation | Placebo Condition | -.029 beta weight | Standard Error 0.042 |
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.57ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.p-value: 0.14ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.p-value: 0.69ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.p-value: 0.34ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.p-value: 0.29ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.p-value: 0.95ANOVA
Comparison: 2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.p-value: 0.11ANOVA