탐닉 (Korean Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "탐닉" in Korean language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Korean rank
4th place
4th place
2nd place
3rd place
1st place
1st place
11th place
310th place
6,166th place
7,491st place
207th place
220th place
18th place
27th place
low place
low place
low place
8,796th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,220th place
538th place
low place
low place
218th place
52nd place
2,446th place
1,801st place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,610th place
869th place
low place
low place
102nd place
307th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
24th place
58th place
low place
low place
low place
5,395th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,418th place
1,474th place
34th place
124th place
2,494th place
7,848th place
69th place
54th place
low place
low place

abam.net

  • “American Board of Medical Specialties recognizes the new subspecialty of addiction medicine” (PDF). 《American Board of Addiction Medicine》. 2016년 3월 14일. 2021년 3월 21일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2016년 4월 3일에 확인함. Sixteen percent of the non-institutionalized U.S. population age 12 and over – more than 40 million Americans – meets medical criteria for addiction involving nicotine, alcohol or other drugs. This is more than the number of Americans with cancer, diabetes or heart conditions. In 2014, 22.5 million people in the United States needed treatment for addiction involving alcohol or drugs other than nicotine, but only 11.6 percent received any form of inpatient, residential, or outpatient treatment. Of those who do receive treatment, few receive evidence-based care. (There is no information available on how many individuals receive treatment for addiction involving nicotine.)
    Risky substance use and untreated addiction account for one-third of inpatient hospital costs and 20 percent of all deaths in the United States each year, and cause or contribute to more than 100 other conditions requiring medical care, as well as vehicular crashes, other fatal and non-fatal injuries, overdose deaths, suicides, homicides, domestic discord, the highest incarceration rate in the world and many other costly social consequences. The economic cost to society is greater than the cost of diabetes and all cancers combined. Despite these startling statistics on the prevalence and costs of addiction, few physicians have been trained to prevent or treat it.
     

addictioncenter.com

addictionsandrecovery.org

alcoholrehab.com

apa.org

psycnet.apa.org

arxiv.org

asam.org

bgnmh.go.kr

cambridgecognition.com

cdc.gov

doi.org

dx.doi.org

  • Volkow ND, Koob GF, McLellan AT (January 2016). “Neurobiologic Advances from the Brain Disease Model of Addiction”. 《N. Engl. J. Med.》 374 (4): 363–371. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1511480. PMID 26816013. Substance-use disorder: A diagnostic term in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) referring to recurrent use of alcohol or other drugs that causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems, disability, and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, school, or home. Depending on the level of severity, this disorder is classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
    Addiction: A term used to indicate the most severe, chronic stage of substance-use disorder, in which there is a substantial loss of self-control, as indicated by compulsive drug taking despite the desire to stop taking the drug. In the DSM-5, the term addiction is synonymous with the classification of severe substance-use disorder.
     
  • Angres DH, Bettinardi-Angres K (October 2008). “The disease of addiction: origins, treatment, and recovery”. 《Dis Mon》 54 (10): 696–721. doi:10.1016/j.disamonth.2008.07.002. PMID 18790142. 
  • Taylor SB, Lewis CR, Olive MF (February 2013). “The neurocircuitry of illicit psychostimulant addiction: acute and chronic effects in humans”. 《Subst. Abuse Rehabil.》 4: 29–43. doi:10.2147/SAR.S39684. PMC 3931688. PMID 24648786. 
  • Ruffle JK (November 2014). “Molecular neurobiology of addiction: what's all the (Δ)FosB about?”. 《Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse》 40 (6): 428–437. doi:10.3109/00952990.2014.933840. PMID 25083822.
    The strong correlation between chronic drug exposure and ΔFosB provides novel opportunities for targeted therapies in addiction (118), and suggests methods to analyze their efficacy (119). Over the past two decades, research has progressed from identifying ΔFosB induction to investigating its subsequent action (38). It is likely that ΔFosB research will now progress into a new era – the use of ΔFosB as a biomarker. ...
    Conclusions
    ΔFosB is an essential transcription factor implicated in the molecular and behavioral pathways of addiction following repeated drug exposure. The formation of ΔFosB in multiple brain regions, and the molecular pathway leading to the formation of AP-1 complexes is well understood. The establishment of a functional purpose for ΔFosB has allowed further determination as to some of the key aspects of its molecular cascades, involving effectors such as GluR2 (87,88), Cdk5 (93) and NFkB (100). Moreover, many of these molecular changes identified are now directly linked to the structural, physiological and behavioral changes observed following chronic drug exposure (60,95,97,102). New frontiers of research investigating the molecular roles of ΔFosB have been opened by epigenetic studies, and recent advances have illustrated the role of ΔFosB acting on DNA and histones, truly as a ‘‘molecular switch’’ (34). As a consequence of our improved understanding of ΔFosB in addiction, it is possible to evaluate the addictive potential of current medications (119), as well as use it as a biomarker for assessing the efficacy of therapeutic interventions (121,122,124). Some of these proposed interventions have limitations (125) or are in their infancy (75). However, it is hoped that some of these preliminary findings may lead to innovative treatments, which are much needed in addiction.
     
  • Olsen CM (December 2011). “Natural rewards, neuroplasticity, and non-drug addictions”. 《Neuropharmacology》 61 (7): 1109–22. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.03.010. PMC 3139704. PMID 21459101. Functional neuroimaging studies in humans have shown that gambling (Breiter et al, 2001), shopping (Knutson et al, 2007), orgasm (Komisaruk et al, 2004), playing video games (Koepp et al, 1998; Hoeft et al, 2008) and the sight of appetizing food (Wang et al, 2004a) activate many of the same brain regions (i.e., the mesocorticolimbic system and extended amygdala) as drugs of abuse (Volkow et al, 2004). ... Cross-sensitization is also bidirectional, as a history of amphetamine administration facilitates sexual behavior and enhances the associated increase in NAc DA ... As described for food reward, sexual experience can also lead to activation of plasticity-related signaling cascades. The transcription factor delta FosB is increased in the NAc, PFC, dorsal striatum, and VTA following repeated sexual behavior (Wallace et al., 2008; Pitchers et al., 2010b). This natural increase in delta FosB or viral overexpression of delta FosB within the NAc modulates sexual performance, and NAc blockade of delta FosB attenuates this behavior (Hedges et al, 2009; Pitchers et al., 2010b). Further, viral overexpression of delta FosB enhances the conditioned place preference for an environment paired with sexual experience (Hedges et al., 2009). ... In some people, there is a transition from "normal" to compulsive engagement in natural rewards (such as food or sex), a condition that some have termed behavioral or non-drug addictions (Holden, 2001; Grant et al., 2006a). ... In humans, the role of dopamine signaling in incentive-sensitization processes has recently been highlighted by the observation of a dopamine dysregulation syndrome in some patients taking dopaminergic drugs. This syndrome is characterized by a medication-induced increase in (or compulsive) engagement in non-drug rewards such as gambling, shopping, or sex (Evans et al, 2006; Aiken, 2007; Lader, 2008)." 
    Table 1: Summary of plasticity observed following exposure to drug or natural reinforcers"
  • Robison AJ, Nestler EJ (November 2011). “Transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms of addiction”. 《Nat. Rev. Neurosci.》 12 (11): 623–37. doi:10.1038/nrn3111. PMC 3272277. PMID 21989194. ΔFosB has been linked directly to several addiction-related behaviors ... Importantly, genetic or viral overexpression of ΔJunD, a dominant negative mutant of JunD which antagonizes ΔFosB- and other AP-1-mediated transcriptional activity, in the NAc or OFC blocks these key effects of drug exposure14,22–24. This indicates that ΔFosB is both necessary and sufficient for many of the changes wrought in the brain by chronic drug exposure. ΔFosB is also induced in D1-type NAc MSNs by chronic consumption of several natural rewards, including sucrose, high fat food, sex, wheel running, where it promotes that consumption14,26–30. This implicates ΔFosB in the regulation of natural rewards under normal conditions and perhaps during pathological addictive-like states. 
  • KR Merikangas KR, McClair VL (June 2012). “Epidemiology of Substance Use Disorders”. 《Hum. Genet.》 131 (6): 779–789. doi:10.1007/s00439-012-1168-0. PMC 4408274. PMID 22543841. 
  • Morse RM, Flavin DK (August 1992). “The definition of alcoholism. The Joint Committee of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine to Study the Definition and Criteria for the Diagnosis of Alcoholism”. 《JAMA》 268 (8): 1012–4. doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03490080086030. PMID 1501306. 
  • Marlatt GA, Baer JS, Donovan DM, Kivlahan DR (1988). “Addictive behaviors: etiology and treatment”. 《Annu Rev Psychol》 39: 223–52. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.39.020188.001255. PMID 3278676. 
  • Washburn DA (2016). “The Stroop effect at 80: The competition between stimulus control and cognitive control”. 《J Exp Anal Behav》 105 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1002/jeab.194. PMID 26781048. Today, arguably more than at any time in history, the constructs of attention, executive functioning, and cognitive control seem to be pervasive and preeminent in research and theory. Even within the cognitive framework, however, there has long been an understanding that behavior is multiply determined, and that many responses are relatively automatic, unattended, contention-scheduled, and habitual. Indeed, the cognitive flexibility, response inhibition, and self-regulation that appear to be hallmarks of cognitive control are noteworthy only in contrast to responses that are relatively rigid, associative, and involuntary. 
  • Diamond A (2013). “Executive functions”. 《Annu Rev Psychol》 64: 135–68. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750. PMC 4084861. PMID 23020641. Core EFs are inhibition [response inhibition (self-control – resisting temptations and resisting acting impulsively) and interference control (selective attention and cognitive inhibition)], working memory, and cognitive flexibility (including creatively thinking "outside the box," seeing anything from different perspectives, and quickly and flexibly adapting to changed circumstances). ... EFs and prefrontal cortex are the first to suffer, and suffer disproportionately, if something is not right in your life. They suffer first, and most, if you are stressed (Arnsten 1998, Liston et al. 2009, Oaten & Cheng 2005), sad (Hirt et al. 2008, von Hecker & Meiser 2005), lonely (Baumeister et al. 2002, Cacioppo & Patrick 2008, Campbell et al. 2006, Tun et al. 2012), sleep deprived (Barnes et al. 2012, Huang et al. 2007), or not physically fit (Best 2010, Chaddock et al. 2011, Hillman et al. 2008). Any of these can cause you to appear to have a disorder of EFs, such as ADHD, when you do not. You can see the deleterious effects of stress, sadness, loneliness, and lack of physical health or fitness at the physiological and neuroanatomical level in prefrontal cortex and at the behavioral level in worse EFs (poorer reasoning and problem solving, forgetting things, and impaired ability to exercise discipline and self-control). ...
    EFs can be improved (Diamond & Lee 2011, Klingberg 2010). ... At any age across the life cycle EFs can be improved, including in the elderly and in infants. There has been much work with excellent results on improving EFs in the elderly by improving physical fitness (Erickson & Kramer 2009, Voss et al. 2011) ... Inhibitory control (one of the core EFs) involves being able to control one's attention, behavior, thoughts, and/or emotions to override a strong internal predisposition or external lure, and instead do what's more appropriate or needed. Without inhibitory control we would be at the mercy of impulses, old habits of thought or action (conditioned responses), and/or stimuli in the environment that pull us this way or that. Thus, inhibitory control makes it possible for us to change and for us to choose how we react and how we behave rather than being unthinking creatures of habit. It doesn’t make it easy. Indeed, we usually are creatures of habit and our behavior is under the control of environmental stimuli far more than we usually realize, but having the ability to exercise inhibitory control creates the possibility of change and choice. ... The subthalamic nucleus appears to play a critical role in preventing such impulsive or premature responding (Frank 2006).
     
  • Karila L, Wéry A, Weinstein A, Cottencin O, Petit A, Reynaud M, Billieux J (2014). “Sexual addiction or hypersexual disorder: different terms for the same problem? A review of the literature”. 《Curr. Pharm. Des.》 20 (25): 4012–20. doi:10.2174/13816128113199990619. PMID 24001295. Sexual addiction, which is also known as hypersexual disorder, has largely been ignored by psychiatrists, even though the condition causes serious psychosocial problems for many people. A lack of empirical evidence on sexual addiction is the result of the disease's complete absence from versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. ... Existing prevalence rates of sexual addiction-related disorders range from 3% to 6%. Sexual addiction/hypersexual disorder is used as an umbrella construct to encompass various types of problematic behaviors, including excessive masturbation, cybersex, pornography use, sexual behavior with consenting adults, telephone sex, strip club visitation, and other behaviors. The adverse consequences of sexual addiction are similar to the consequences of other addictive disorders. Addictive, somatic and psychiatric disorders coexist with sexual addiction. In recent years, research on sexual addiction has proliferated, and screening instruments have increasingly been developed to diagnose or quantify sexual addiction disorders. In our systematic review of the existing measures, 22 questionnaires were identified. As with other behavioral addictions, the appropriate treatment of sexual addiction should combine pharmacological and psychological approaches. 
  • Pitchers KK, Vialou V, Nestler EJ, Laviolette SR, Lehman MN, Coolen LM (February 2013). “Natural and drug rewards act on common neural plasticity mechanisms with ΔFosB as a key mediator”. 《The Journal of Neuroscience33 (8): 3434–42. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4881-12.2013. PMC 3865508. PMID 23426671. Drugs of abuse induce neuroplasticity in the natural reward pathway, specifically the nucleus accumbens (NAc), thereby causing development and expression of addictive behavior. ... Together, these findings demonstrate that drugs of abuse and natural reward behaviors act on common molecular and cellular mechanisms of plasticity that control vulnerability to drug addiction, and that this increased vulnerability is mediated by ΔFosB and its downstream transcriptional targets. ... Sexual behavior is highly rewarding (Tenk et al., 2009), and sexual experience causes sensitized drug-related behaviors, including cross-sensitization to amphetamine (Amph)-induced locomotor activity (Bradley and Meisel, 2001; Pitchers et al., 2010a) and enhanced Amph reward (Pitchers et al., 2010a). Moreover, sexual experience induces neural plasticity in the NAc similar to that induced by psychostimulant exposure, including increased dendritic spine density (Meisel and Mullins, 2006; Pitchers et al., 2010a), altered glutamate receptor trafficking, and decreased synaptic strength in prefrontal cortex-responding NAc shell neurons (Pitchers et al., 2012). Finally, periods of abstinence from sexual experience were found to be critical for enhanced Amph reward, NAc spinogenesis (Pitchers et al., 2010a), and glutamate receptor trafficking (Pitchers et al., 2012). These findings suggest that natural and drug reward experiences share common mechanisms of neural plasticity 
  • Beloate LN, Weems PW, Casey GR, Webb IC, Coolen LM (February 2016). “Nucleus accumbens NMDA receptor activation regulates amphetamine cross-sensitization and deltaFosB expression following sexual experience in male rats”. 《Neuropharmacology》 101: 154–64. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.09.023. PMID 26391065. S2CID 25317397. 
  • Meule A, Gearhardt AN (September 2014). “Food addiction in the light of DSM-5”. 《Nutrients》 6 (9): 3653–71. doi:10.3390/nu6093653. PMC 4179181. PMID 25230209. 
  • Grant JE, Potenza MN, Weinstein A, Gorelick DA (September 2010). “Introduction to behavioral addictions”. 《Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse》 36 (5): 233–241. doi:10.3109/00952990.2010.491884. PMC 3164585. PMID 20560821. Naltrexone, a mu-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of alcoholism and opioid dependence, has shown efficacy in controlled clinical trials for the treatment of pathological gambling and kleptomania (76–79), and promise in uncontrolled studies of compulsive buying (80), compulsive sexual behavior (81), internet addiction (82), and pathologic skin picking (83). ... Topiramate, an anti-convulsant which blocks the AMPA subtype of glutamate receptor (among other actions), has shown promise in open-label studies of pathological gambling, compulsive buying, and compulsive skin picking (85), as well as efficacy in reducing alcohol (86), cigarette (87), and cocaine (88) use. N-acetyl cysteine, an amino acid that restores extracellular glutamate concentration in the nucleus accumbens, reduced gambling urges and behavior in one study of pathological gamblers (89), and reduces cocaine craving (90) and cocaine use (91) in cocaine addicts. These studies suggest that glutamatergic modulation of dopaminergic tone in the nucleus accumbens may be a mechanism common to behavioral addiction and substance use disorders (92). 
  • Vassoler FM, Sadri-Vakili G (2014). “Mechanisms of transgenerational inheritance of addictive-like behaviors”. 《Neuroscience》 264: 198–206. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.07.064. PMC 3872494. PMID 23920159. However, the components that are responsible for the heritability of characteristics that make an individual more susceptible to drug addiction in humans remain largely unknown given that patterns of inheritance cannot be explained by simple genetic mechanisms (Cloninger et al., 1981; Schuckit et al., 1972). The environment also plays a large role in the development of addiction as evidenced by great societal variability in drug use patterns between countries and across time (UNODC, 2012). Therefore, both genetics and the environment contribute to an individual's vulnerability to become addicted following an initial exposure to drugs of abuse. ...
    The evidence presented here demonstrates that rapid environmental adaptation occurs following exposure to a number of stimuli. Epigenetic mechanisms represent the key components by which the environment can influence genetics, and they provide the missing link between genetic heritability and environmental influences on the behavioral and physiological phenotypes of the offspring.
     
  • Kendler KS, Neale MC, Heath AC, Kessler RC, Eaves LJ (May 1994). “A twin-family study of alcoholism in women”. 《Am J Psychiatry》 151 (5): 707–15. doi:10.1176/ajp.151.5.707. PMID 8166312. 
  • Clarke TK, Crist RC, Kampman KM, Dackis CA, Pettinati HM, O'Brien CP, Oslin DW, Ferraro TN, Lohoff FW, Berrettini WH (2013). “Low frequency genetic variants in the μ-opioid receptor (OPRM1) affect risk for addiction to heroin and cocaine”. 《Neuroscience Letters》 542: 71–75. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2013.02.018. PMC 3640707. PMID 23454283. 
  • Hall FS, Drgonova J, Jain S, Uhl GR (December 2013). “Implications of genome wide association studies for addiction: are our a priori assumptions all wrong?”. 《Pharmacology & Therapeutics》 140 (3): 267–79. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.07.006. PMC 3797854. PMID 23872493. 
  • Lewis M (October 2018). Longo DL, 편집. “Brain Change in Addiction as Learning, Not Disease”. 《The New England Journal of Medicine》 379 (16): 1551–1560. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1602872. PMID 30332573. Addictive activities are determined neither solely by brain changes nor solely by social conditions ... the narrowing seen in addiction takes place within the behavioral repertoire, the social surround, and the brain — all at the same time. 
  • Enoch, Mary (2011). “The role of early life stress as a predictor for alcohol and drug dependence”. 《Psychopharmacology》 214 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1007/s00213-010-1916-6. PMC 3005022. PMID 20596857. 
  • Spear LP (June 2000). “The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations”. 《Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews》 24 (4): 417–63. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.461.3295. doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(00)00014-2. PMID 10817843. S2CID 14686245. 
  • Catalano RF, Hawkins JD, Wells EA, Miller J, Brewer D (1990). “Evaluation of the effectiveness of adolescent drug abuse treatment, assessment of risks for relapse, and promising approaches for relapse prevention”. 《The International Journal of the Addictions》 25 (9A–10A): 1085–140. doi:10.3109/10826089109081039. PMID 2131328. 
  • Perepletchikova F, Krystal JH, Kaufman J (November 2008). “Practitioner review: adolescent alcohol use disorders: assessment and treatment issues”. 《Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines》 49 (11): 1131–54. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01934.x. PMC 4113213. PMID 19017028. 
  • Yuan TF, Li A, Sun X, Ouyang H, Campos C, Rocha NB, Arias-Carrión O, Machado S, Hou G, So KF (2015). “Transgenerational Inheritance of Paternal Neurobehavioral Phenotypes: Stress, Addiction, Ageing and Metabolism”. 《Mol. Neurobiol.》 53 (9): 6367–76. doi:10.1007/s12035-015-9526-2. hdl:10400.22/7331. PMID 26572641. S2CID 25694221. 
  • Hyman SE, Malenka RC, Nestler EJ (2006). “Neural mechanisms of addiction: the role of reward-related learning and memory”. 《Annu. Rev. Neurosci.》 29: 565–98. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113009. PMID 16776597. 
  • Steiner H, Van Waes V (January 2013). “Addiction-related gene regulation: risks of exposure to cognitive enhancers vs. other psychostimulants”. 《Prog. Neurobiol.》 100: 60–80. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.10.001. PMC 3525776. PMID 23085425. 
  • Kim Y, Teylan MA, Baron M, Sands A, Nairn AC, Greengard P (February 2009). “Methylphenidate-induced dendritic spine formation and DeltaFosB expression in nucleus accumbens”. 《Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA》 106 (8): 2915–20. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.2915K. doi:10.1073/pnas.0813179106. PMC 2650365. PMID 19202072. 
  • Nestler EJ (January 2014). “Epigenetic mechanisms of drug addiction”. 《Neuropharmacology》. 76 Pt B: 259–68. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.04.004. PMC 3766384. PMID 23643695. Short-term increases in histone acetylation generally promote behavioral responses to the drugs, while sustained increases oppose cocaine's effects, based on the actions of systemic or intra-NAc administration of HDAC inhibitors. ... Genetic or pharmacological blockade of G9a in the NAc potentiates behavioral responses to cocaine and opiates, whereas increasing G9a function exerts the opposite effect (Maze et al., 2010; Sun et al., 2012a). Such drug-induced downregulation of G9a and H3K9me2 also sensitizes animals to the deleterious effects of subsequent chronic stress (Covington et al., 2011). Downregulation of G9a increases the dendritic arborization of NAc neurons, and is associated with increased expression of numerous proteins implicated in synaptic function, which directly connects altered G9a/H3K9me2 in the synaptic plasticity associated with addiction (Maze et al., 2010).
    G9a appears to be a critical control point for epigenetic regulation in NAc, as we know it functions in two negative feedback loops. It opposes the induction of ΔFosB, a long-lasting transcription factor important for drug addiction (Robison and Nestler, 2011), while ΔFosB in turn suppresses G9a expression (Maze et al., 2010; Sun et al., 2012a). ... Also, G9a is induced in NAc upon prolonged HDAC inhibition, which explains the paradoxical attenuation of cocaine's behavioral effects seen under these conditions, as noted above (Kennedy et al., 2013). GABAA receptor subunit genes are among those that are controlled by this feedback loop. Thus, chronic cocaine, or prolonged HDAC inhibition, induces several GABAA receptor subunits in NAc, which is associated with increased frequency of inhibitory postsynaptic currents (IPSCs). In striking contrast, combined exposure to cocaine and HDAC inhibition, which triggers the induction of G9a and increased global levels of H3K9me2, leads to blockade of GABAA receptor and IPSC regulation.
     
  • Blum K, Werner T, Carnes S, Carnes P, Bowirrat A, Giordano J, Oscar-Berman M, Gold M (2012). “Sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll: hypothesizing common mesolimbic activation as a function of reward gene polymorphisms”. 《Journal of Psychoactive Drugs》 44 (1): 38–55. doi:10.1080/02791072.2012.662112. PMC 4040958. PMID 22641964. It has been found that deltaFosB gene in the NAc is critical for reinforcing effects of sexual reward. Pitchers and colleagues (2010) reported that sexual experience was shown to cause DeltaFosB accumulation in several limbic brain regions including the NAc, medial pre-frontal cortex, VTA, caudate, and putamen, but not the medial preoptic nucleus. Next, the induction of c-Fos, a downstream (repressed) target of DeltaFosB, was measured in sexually experienced and naive animals. The number of mating-induced c-Fos-IR cells was significantly decreased in sexually experienced animals compared to sexually naive controls. Finally, DeltaFosB levels and its activity in the NAc were manipulated using viral-mediated gene transfer to study its potential role in mediating sexual experience and experience-induced facilitation of sexual performance. Animals with DeltaFosB overexpression displayed enhanced facilitation of sexual performance with sexual experience relative to controls. In contrast, the expression of DeltaJunD, a dominant-negative binding partner of DeltaFosB, attenuated sexual experience-induced facilitation of sexual performance, and stunted long-term maintenance of facilitation compared to DeltaFosB overexpressing group. Together, these findings support a critical role for DeltaFosB expression in the NAc in the reinforcing effects of sexual behavior and sexual experience-induced facilitation of sexual performance. ... both drug addiction and sexual addiction represent pathological forms of neuroplasticity along with the emergence of aberrant behaviors involving a cascade of neurochemical changes mainly in the brain's rewarding circuitry. 
  • Salamone JD (1992). “Complex motor and sensorimotor functions of striatal and accumbens dopamine: involvement in instrumental behavior processes”. 《Psychopharmacology》 107 (2–3): 160–74. doi:10.1007/bf02245133. PMID 1615120. S2CID 30545845. 
  • Kauer JA, Malenka RC (November 2007). “Synaptic plasticity and addiction”. 《Nature Reviews. Neuroscience》 8 (11): 844–58. doi:10.1038/nrn2234. PMID 17948030. S2CID 38811195. 
  • Witten IB, Lin SC, Brodsky M, Prakash R, Diester I, Anikeeva P, 외. (December 2010). “Cholinergic interneurons control local circuit activity and cocaine conditioning”. 《Science》 330 (6011): 1677–81. Bibcode:2010Sci...330.1677W. doi:10.1126/science.1193771. PMC 3142356. PMID 21164015. 
  • Jones S, Bonci A (2005). “Synaptic plasticity and drug addiction”. 《Current Opinion in Pharmacology》 5 (1): 20–25. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2004.08.011. PMID 15661621. 
  • Eisch AJ, Harburg GC (2006). “Opiates, psychostimulants, and adult hippocampal neurogenesis: Insights for addiction and stem cell biology”. 《Hippocampus》 16 (3): 271–86. doi:10.1002/hipo.20161. PMID 16411230. S2CID 23667629. 
  • Kourrich S, Rothwell PE, Klug JR, Thomas MJ (2007). “Cocaine experience controls bidirectional synaptic plasticity in the nucleus accumbens”. 《J. Neurosci.》 27 (30): 7921–28. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1859-07.2007. PMC 6672735. PMID 17652583. 
  • Kalivas PW, Volkow ND (August 2005). “The neural basis of addiction: a pathology of motivation and choice”. 《The American Journal of Psychiatry》 162 (8): 1403–13. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.8.1403. PMID 16055761. 
  • Floresco SB, Ghods-Sharifi S (February 2007). “Amygdala-prefrontal cortical circuitry regulates effort-based decision making”. 《Cerebral Cortex》 17 (2): 251–60. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.335.4681. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhj143. PMID 16495432. 
  • Perry CJ, Zbukvic I, Kim JH, Lawrence AJ (October 2014). “Role of cues and contexts on drug-seeking behaviour”. 《British Journal of Pharmacology》 171 (20): 4636–72. doi:10.1111/bph.12735. PMC 4209936. PMID 24749941. 
  • Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wang GJ, Swanson JM, Telang F (2007). “Dopamine in drug abuse and addiction: results of imaging studies and treatment implications”. 《Arch. Neurol.》 64 (11): 1575–79. doi:10.1001/archneur.64.11.1575. PMID 17998440. 
  • Berridge KC (April 2012). “From prediction error to incentive salience: mesolimbic computation of reward motivation”. 《Eur. J. Neurosci.》 35 (7): 1124–43. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.07990.x. PMC 3325516. PMID 22487042. Here I discuss how mesocorticolimbic mechanisms generate the motivation component of incentive salience. Incentive salience takes Pavlovian learning and memory as one input and as an equally important input takes neurobiological state factors (e.g. drug states, appetite states, satiety states) that can vary independently of learning. Neurobiological state changes can produce unlearned fluctuations or even reversals in the ability of a previously learned reward cue to trigger motivation. Such fluctuations in cue-triggered motivation can dramatically depart from all previously learned values about the associated reward outcome. ... Associative learning and prediction are important contributors to motivation for rewards. Learning gives incentive value to arbitrary cues such as a Pavlovian conditioned stimulus (CS) that is associated with a reward (unconditioned stimulus or UCS). Learned cues for reward are often potent triggers of desires. For example, learned cues can trigger normal appetites in everyone, and can sometimes trigger compulsive urges and relapse in addicts.
    Cue-triggered ‘wanting’ for the UCS
    A brief CS encounter (or brief UCS encounter) often primes a pulse of elevated motivation to obtain and consume more reward UCS. This is a signature feature of incentive salience.
    Cue as attractive motivational magnets
    When a Pavlovian CS+ is attributed with incentive salience it not only triggers ‘wanting’ for its UCS, but often the cue itself becomes highly attractive – even to an irrational degree. This cue attraction is another signature feature of incentive salience ... Two recognizable features of incentive salience are often visible that can be used in neuroscience experiments: (i) UCS-directed ‘wanting’ – CS-triggered pulses of intensified ‘wanting’ for the UCS reward; and (ii) CS-directed ‘wanting’ – motivated attraction to the Pavlovian cue, which makes the arbitrary CS stimulus into a motivational magnet.
     
  • Edwards S (2016). 〈Reinforcement principles for addiction medicine; from recreational drug use to psychiatric disorder〉. 《Neuroscience for Addiction Medicine: From Prevention to Rehabilitation - Constructs and Drugs》. 《Prog. Brain Res.》. Progress in Brain Research 223. 63–76쪽. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.07.005. ISBN 978-0-444-63545-7. PMID 26806771. An important dimension of reinforcement highly relevant to the addiction process (and particularly relapse) is secondary reinforcement (Stewart, 1992). Secondary reinforcers (in many cases also considered conditioned reinforcers) likely drive the majority of reinforcement processes in humans. In the specific case of drug addition, cues and contexts that are intimately and repeatedly associated with drug use will often themselves become reinforcing ... A fundamental piece of Robinson and Berridge's incentive-sensitization theory of addiction posits that the incentive value or attractive nature of such secondary reinforcement processes, in addition to the primary reinforcers themselves, may persist and even become sensitized over time in league with the development of drug addiction (Robinson and Berridge, 1993). 
  • Berridge KC, Kringelbach ML (May 2015). “Pleasure systems in the brain”. 《Neuron》 86 (3): 646–64. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.018. PMC 4425246. PMID 25950633. 
  • Nestler EJ, Barrot M, Self DW (September 2001). “DeltaFosB: a sustained molecular switch for addiction”. 《Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.》 98 (20): 11042–46. Bibcode:2001PNAS...9811042N. doi:10.1073/pnas.191352698. PMC 58680. PMID 11572966. Although the ΔFosB signal is relatively long-lived, it is not permanent. ΔFosB degrades gradually and can no longer be detected in brain after 1–2 months of drug withdrawal ... Indeed, ΔFosB is the longest-lived adaptation known to occur in adult brain, not only in response to drugs of abuse, but to any other perturbation (that doesn't involve lesions) as well. 
  • Nestler EJ (October 2008). “Review. Transcriptional mechanisms of addiction: role of DeltaFosB”. 《Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences》 363 (1507): 3245–55. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0067. PMC 2607320. PMID 18640924. Recent evidence has shown that ΔFosB also represses the c-fos gene that helps create the molecular switch – from the induction of several short-lived Fos family proteins after acute drug exposure to the predominant accumulation of ΔFosB after chronic drug exposure – cited earlier (Renthal et al. in press). The mechanism responsible for ΔFosB repression of c-fos expression is complex and is covered below. ...
    Examples of validated targets for ΔFosB in nucleus accumbens ... GluR2 ... dynorphin ... Cdk5 ... NFκB ... c-Fos
     
    Table 3
  • Traynor J (March 2012). “μ-Opioid receptors and regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins: from a symposium on new concepts in mu-opioid pharmacology”. 《Drug Alcohol Depend》 121 (3): 173–80. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.10.027. PMC 3288798. PMID 22129844. 
  • Walker DM, Cates HM, Heller EA, Nestler EJ (February 2015). “Regulation of chromatin states by drugs of abuse”. 《Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.》 30: 112–21. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2014.11.002. PMC 4293340. PMID 25486626. Studies investigating general HDAC inhibition on behavioral outcomes have produced varying results but it seems that the effects are specific to the timing of exposure (either before, during or after exposure to drugs of abuse) as well as the length of exposure 
  • Petry NM, Rehbein F, Gentile DA, Lemmens JS, Rumpf HJ, Mößle T, Bischof G, Tao R, Fung DS, Borges G, Auriacombe M, González Ibáñez A, Tam P, O'Brien CP (September 2014). “An international consensus for assessing internet gaming disorder using the new DSM-5 approach”. 《Addiction》 109 (9): 1399–406. doi:10.1111/add.12457. PMID 24456155. 
  • Torres G, Horowitz JM (1999). “Drugs of abuse and brain gene expression”. 《Psychosom Med》 61 (5): 630–50. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.326.4903. doi:10.1097/00006842-199909000-00007. PMID 10511013. 
  • Hampton WH, Hanik I, Olson IR (2019). “Substance Abuse and White Matter: Findings, Limitations, and Future of Diffusion Tensor Imaging Research”. 《Drug and Alcohol Dependence》 (영어) 197 (4): 288–298. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.02.005. PMC 6440853. PMID 30875650. Despite this progress, our ability to predict, diagnose, and track addiction in humans based on brain images has been relatively limited. The difficulty elucidating such outcomes may be partly due to a relative dearth of research considering neural white matter, which constitutes over half of human brain volume and plays a vital role in governing communication between cortical areas (Fields, 2008). Diffusion mag- netic resonance imaging has emerged as a method to non-invasively examine white matter in the human brain and relate such connectivity to substance abuse and addictive behaviors (Suckling and Nestor, 2017) 
  • Manubay JM, Muchow C, Sullivan MA (March 2011). “Prescription drug abuse: epidemiology, regulatory issues, chronic pain management with narcotic analgesics”. 《Primary Care》 38 (1): 71–90. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2010.11.006. PMC 3328297. PMID 21356422. 
  • Pacurucu-Castillo SF, Ordóñez-Mancheno JM, Hernández-Cruz A, Alarcón RD (April 2019). “World opioid and substance use epidemic: a Latin American perspective.”. 《Psychiatric Research and Clinical Practice.》 1 (1): 32–8. doi:10.1176/appi.prcp.20180009. 
  • Fehrman E, Egan V, Gorban AN, Levesley J, Mirkes EM, Muhammad AK (2019). 《Personality Traits and Drug Consumption. A Story Told by Data》. Springer, Cham. arXiv:2001.06520. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-10442-9. ISBN 978-3-030-10441-2. S2CID 151160405. 
  • Cheetham A, Allen NB, Yücel M, Lubman DI (August 2010). “The role of affective dysregulation in drug addiction”. 《Clin Psychol Rev》 30 (6): 621–34. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.005. PMID 20546986. 
  • Franken IH, Muris P (2006). “BIS/BAS personality characteristics and college students' substance use”. 《Personality and Individual Differences》 40 (7): 1497–503. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.005. 
  • Genovese JE, Wallace D (December 2007). “Reward sensitivity and substance abuse in middle school and high school students”. 《J Genet Psychol》 168 (4): 465–69. doi:10.3200/GNTP.168.4.465-469. PMID 18232522. S2CID 207640075. 
  • Kimbrel NA, Nelson-Gray RO, Mitchell JT (April 2007). “Reinforcement sensitivity and maternal style as predictors of psychopathology”. 《Personality and Individual Differences》 42 (6): 1139–49. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.028. 
  • Dawe S, Loxton NJ (May 2004). “The role of impulsivity in the development of substance use and eating disorders”. 《Neurosci Biobehav Rev》 28 (3): 343–51. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.03.007. PMID 15225976. S2CID 24435589. 

drugabuse.gov

  • “Overdose Death Rates”. National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2018년 8월 9일. 2018년 9월 17일에 확인함. 
  • “What are risk factors and protective factors?”. National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2020년 4월 30일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 12월 13일에 확인함. 
  • “Understanding Drug Use and Addiction”. 《www.drugabuse.gov》 (영어). National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2020년 5월 29일에 확인함. 
  • “Nationwide Trends”. National Institute on Drug Abuse. June 2015. 2017년 12월 15일에 확인함. 
  • Abuse, National Institute on Drug (2020년 8월 20일). “Commonly Used Drugs Charts”. 《National Institute on Drug Abuse》 (영어). 2021년 3월 9일에 확인함. 
  • “Drugs, Brains, and Behavior: The Science of Addiction”. National Institute on Drug Abuse. 
  • “Understanding Drug Abuse and Addiction”. National Institute on Drug Abuse. November 2012. 2011년 8월 23일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2015년 2월 12일에 확인함. 
  • Volkow, Nora (2016년 3월 31일). “A Major Step Forward for Addiction Medicine”. 《National Institute on Drug Abuse》. National Institutes of Health. 2016년 4월 5일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2016년 4월 3일에 확인함. Only about 10 percent of the 21 million Americans who meet the need for care for an alcohol or drug use disorder receive any form of treatment, and much of the treatment available does not meet standards for evidence-based care. There are many attitudinal and systemic reasons for this treatment gap, including stigma against treating people with addictions and institutional barriers to providing or funding addiction treatment. ... A major milestone was reached on March 14, 2016, when the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) formally announced recognition of the field of Addiction Medicine as a medical subspecialty. ... In a statement issued to mark this milestone, ABAM President Robert J. Sokol summed up its significance: 'This landmark event, more than any other, recognizes addiction as a preventable and treatable disease, helping to shed the stigma that has long plagued it. It sends a strong message to the public that American medicine is committed to providing expert care for this disease and services designed to prevent the risky substance use that precedes it.' 

dsm5.org

  • American Psychiatric Association (2013). “Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders” (PDF). American Psychiatric Publishing. 1–2쪽. 2015년 8월 15일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2015년 7월 10일에 확인함. Additionally, the diagnosis of dependence caused much confusion. Most people link dependence with "addiction" when in fact dependence can be a normal body response to a substance. 

dualdiagnosis.org

genome.jp

handle.net

hdl.handle.net

  • Yuan TF, Li A, Sun X, Ouyang H, Campos C, Rocha NB, Arias-Carrión O, Machado S, Hou G, So KF (2015). “Transgenerational Inheritance of Paternal Neurobehavioral Phenotypes: Stress, Addiction, Ageing and Metabolism”. 《Mol. Neurobiol.》 53 (9): 6367–76. doi:10.1007/s12035-015-9526-2. hdl:10400.22/7331. PMID 26572641. S2CID 25694221. 

harvard.edu

adsabs.harvard.edu

health.gov.au

innervoyagerecovery.com

  • Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). 〈Chapter 13: Higher Cognitive Function and Behavioral Control〉. Sydor A, Brown RY. 《Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience》 2판. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. 313–21쪽. ISBN 978-0-07-148127-4.  • Executive function, the cognitive control of behavior, depends on the prefrontal cortex, which is highly developed in higher primates and especially humans.
     • Working memory is a short-term, capacity-limited cognitive buffer that stores information and permits its manipulation to guide decision-making and behavior. ...
    These diverse inputs and back projections to both cortical and subcortical structures put the prefrontal cortex in a position to exert what is often called "top-down" control or cognitive control of behavior. ... The prefrontal cortex receives inputs not only from other cortical regions, including association cortex, but also, via the thalamus, inputs from subcortical structures subserving emotion and motivation, such as the amygdala (Chapter 14) and ventral striatum (or nucleus accumbens; Chapter 15). ...
    In conditions in which prepotent responses tend to dominate behavior, such as in drug addiction, where drug cues can elicit drug seeking (Chapter 15), or in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; described below), significant negative consequences can result. ... ADHD can be conceptualized as a disorder of executive function; specifically, ADHD is characterized by reduced ability to exert and maintain cognitive control of behavior. Compared with healthy individuals, those with ADHD have diminished ability to suppress inappropriate prepotent responses to stimuli (impaired response inhibition) and diminished ability to inhibit responses to irrelevant stimuli (impaired interference suppression). ... Functional neuroimaging in humans demonstrates activation of the prefrontal cortex and caudate nucleus (part of the striatum) in tasks that demand inhibitory control of behavior. Subjects with ADHD exhibit less activation of the medial prefrontal cortex than healthy controls even when they succeed in such tasks and utilize different circuits. ... Early results with structural MRI show thinning of the cerebral cortex in ADHD subjects compared with age-matched controls in prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex, areas involved in working memory and attention.
     

koicd.kr

mayoclinic.org

mssm.edu

neuroscience.mssm.edu

  • “Glossary of Terms”. 《Mount Sinai School of Medicine》. Department of Neuroscience. 2015년 2월 9일에 확인함. 

nih.gov

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

  • Nestler EJ (December 2013). “Cellular basis of memory for addiction”. 《Dialogues Clin. Neurosci.》 15 (4): 431–443. PMC 3898681. PMID 24459410. Despite the importance of numerous psychosocial factors, at its core, drug addiction involves a biological process: the ability of repeated exposure to a drug of abuse to induce changes in a vulnerable brain that drive the compulsive seeking and taking of drugs, and loss of control over drug use, that define a state of addiction. ... A large body of literature has demonstrated that such ΔFosB induction in D1-type [nucleus accumbens] neurons increases an animal's sensitivity to drug as well as natural rewards and promotes drug self-administration, presumably through a process of positive reinforcement ... Another ΔFosB target is cFos: as ΔFosB accumulates with repeated drug exposure it represses c-Fos and contributes to the molecular switch whereby ΔFosB is selectively induced in the chronic drug-treated state.41. ... Moreover, there is increasing evidence that, despite a range of genetic risks for addiction across the population, exposure to sufficiently high doses of a drug for long periods of time can transform someone who has relatively lower genetic loading into an addict. 
  • Volkow ND, Koob GF, McLellan AT (January 2016). “Neurobiologic Advances from the Brain Disease Model of Addiction”. 《N. Engl. J. Med.》 374 (4): 363–371. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1511480. PMID 26816013. Substance-use disorder: A diagnostic term in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) referring to recurrent use of alcohol or other drugs that causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems, disability, and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, school, or home. Depending on the level of severity, this disorder is classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
    Addiction: A term used to indicate the most severe, chronic stage of substance-use disorder, in which there is a substantial loss of self-control, as indicated by compulsive drug taking despite the desire to stop taking the drug. In the DSM-5, the term addiction is synonymous with the classification of severe substance-use disorder.
     
  • Angres DH, Bettinardi-Angres K (October 2008). “The disease of addiction: origins, treatment, and recovery”. 《Dis Mon》 54 (10): 696–721. doi:10.1016/j.disamonth.2008.07.002. PMID 18790142. 
  • Taylor SB, Lewis CR, Olive MF (February 2013). “The neurocircuitry of illicit psychostimulant addiction: acute and chronic effects in humans”. 《Subst. Abuse Rehabil.》 4: 29–43. doi:10.2147/SAR.S39684. PMC 3931688. PMID 24648786. 
  • Ruffle JK (November 2014). “Molecular neurobiology of addiction: what's all the (Δ)FosB about?”. 《Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse》 40 (6): 428–437. doi:10.3109/00952990.2014.933840. PMID 25083822.
    The strong correlation between chronic drug exposure and ΔFosB provides novel opportunities for targeted therapies in addiction (118), and suggests methods to analyze their efficacy (119). Over the past two decades, research has progressed from identifying ΔFosB induction to investigating its subsequent action (38). It is likely that ΔFosB research will now progress into a new era – the use of ΔFosB as a biomarker. ...
    Conclusions
    ΔFosB is an essential transcription factor implicated in the molecular and behavioral pathways of addiction following repeated drug exposure. The formation of ΔFosB in multiple brain regions, and the molecular pathway leading to the formation of AP-1 complexes is well understood. The establishment of a functional purpose for ΔFosB has allowed further determination as to some of the key aspects of its molecular cascades, involving effectors such as GluR2 (87,88), Cdk5 (93) and NFkB (100). Moreover, many of these molecular changes identified are now directly linked to the structural, physiological and behavioral changes observed following chronic drug exposure (60,95,97,102). New frontiers of research investigating the molecular roles of ΔFosB have been opened by epigenetic studies, and recent advances have illustrated the role of ΔFosB acting on DNA and histones, truly as a ‘‘molecular switch’’ (34). As a consequence of our improved understanding of ΔFosB in addiction, it is possible to evaluate the addictive potential of current medications (119), as well as use it as a biomarker for assessing the efficacy of therapeutic interventions (121,122,124). Some of these proposed interventions have limitations (125) or are in their infancy (75). However, it is hoped that some of these preliminary findings may lead to innovative treatments, which are much needed in addiction.
     
  • Olsen CM (December 2011). “Natural rewards, neuroplasticity, and non-drug addictions”. 《Neuropharmacology》 61 (7): 1109–22. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.03.010. PMC 3139704. PMID 21459101. Functional neuroimaging studies in humans have shown that gambling (Breiter et al, 2001), shopping (Knutson et al, 2007), orgasm (Komisaruk et al, 2004), playing video games (Koepp et al, 1998; Hoeft et al, 2008) and the sight of appetizing food (Wang et al, 2004a) activate many of the same brain regions (i.e., the mesocorticolimbic system and extended amygdala) as drugs of abuse (Volkow et al, 2004). ... Cross-sensitization is also bidirectional, as a history of amphetamine administration facilitates sexual behavior and enhances the associated increase in NAc DA ... As described for food reward, sexual experience can also lead to activation of plasticity-related signaling cascades. The transcription factor delta FosB is increased in the NAc, PFC, dorsal striatum, and VTA following repeated sexual behavior (Wallace et al., 2008; Pitchers et al., 2010b). This natural increase in delta FosB or viral overexpression of delta FosB within the NAc modulates sexual performance, and NAc blockade of delta FosB attenuates this behavior (Hedges et al, 2009; Pitchers et al., 2010b). Further, viral overexpression of delta FosB enhances the conditioned place preference for an environment paired with sexual experience (Hedges et al., 2009). ... In some people, there is a transition from "normal" to compulsive engagement in natural rewards (such as food or sex), a condition that some have termed behavioral or non-drug addictions (Holden, 2001; Grant et al., 2006a). ... In humans, the role of dopamine signaling in incentive-sensitization processes has recently been highlighted by the observation of a dopamine dysregulation syndrome in some patients taking dopaminergic drugs. This syndrome is characterized by a medication-induced increase in (or compulsive) engagement in non-drug rewards such as gambling, shopping, or sex (Evans et al, 2006; Aiken, 2007; Lader, 2008)." 
    Table 1: Summary of plasticity observed following exposure to drug or natural reinforcers"
  • Biliński P, Wojtyła A, Kapka-Skrzypczak L, Chwedorowicz R, Cyranka M, Studziński T (2012). “Epigenetic regulation in drug addiction”. 《Ann. Agric. Environ. Med.》 19 (3): 491–496. PMID 23020045. For these reasons, ΔFosB is considered a primary and causative transcription factor in creating new neural connections in the reward centre, prefrontal cortex, and other regions of the limbic system. This is reflected in the increased, stable and long-lasting level of sensitivity to cocaine and other drugs, and tendency to relapse even after long periods of abstinence. These newly constructed networks function very efficiently via new pathways as soon as drugs of abuse are further taken ... In this way, the induction of CDK5 gene expression occurs together with suppression of the G9A gene coding for dimethyltransferase acting on the histone H3. A feedback mechanism can be observed in the regulation of these 2 crucial factors that determine the adaptive epigenetic response to cocaine. This depends on ΔFosB inhibiting G9a gene expression, i.e. H3K9me2 synthesis which in turn inhibits transcription factors for ΔFosB. For this reason, the observed hyper-expression of G9a, which ensures high levels of the dimethylated form of histone H3, eliminates the neuronal structural and plasticity effects caused by cocaine by means of this feedback which blocks ΔFosB transcription 
  • Robison AJ, Nestler EJ (November 2011). “Transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms of addiction”. 《Nat. Rev. Neurosci.》 12 (11): 623–37. doi:10.1038/nrn3111. PMC 3272277. PMID 21989194. ΔFosB has been linked directly to several addiction-related behaviors ... Importantly, genetic or viral overexpression of ΔJunD, a dominant negative mutant of JunD which antagonizes ΔFosB- and other AP-1-mediated transcriptional activity, in the NAc or OFC blocks these key effects of drug exposure14,22–24. This indicates that ΔFosB is both necessary and sufficient for many of the changes wrought in the brain by chronic drug exposure. ΔFosB is also induced in D1-type NAc MSNs by chronic consumption of several natural rewards, including sucrose, high fat food, sex, wheel running, where it promotes that consumption14,26–30. This implicates ΔFosB in the regulation of natural rewards under normal conditions and perhaps during pathological addictive-like states. 
  • KR Merikangas KR, McClair VL (June 2012). “Epidemiology of Substance Use Disorders”. 《Hum. Genet.》 131 (6): 779–789. doi:10.1007/s00439-012-1168-0. PMC 4408274. PMID 22543841. 
  • Morse RM, Flavin DK (August 1992). “The definition of alcoholism. The Joint Committee of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine to Study the Definition and Criteria for the Diagnosis of Alcoholism”. 《JAMA》 268 (8): 1012–4. doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03490080086030. PMID 1501306. 
  • Marlatt GA, Baer JS, Donovan DM, Kivlahan DR (1988). “Addictive behaviors: etiology and treatment”. 《Annu Rev Psychol》 39: 223–52. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.39.020188.001255. PMID 3278676. 
  • Washburn DA (2016). “The Stroop effect at 80: The competition between stimulus control and cognitive control”. 《J Exp Anal Behav》 105 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1002/jeab.194. PMID 26781048. Today, arguably more than at any time in history, the constructs of attention, executive functioning, and cognitive control seem to be pervasive and preeminent in research and theory. Even within the cognitive framework, however, there has long been an understanding that behavior is multiply determined, and that many responses are relatively automatic, unattended, contention-scheduled, and habitual. Indeed, the cognitive flexibility, response inhibition, and self-regulation that appear to be hallmarks of cognitive control are noteworthy only in contrast to responses that are relatively rigid, associative, and involuntary. 
  • Diamond A (2013). “Executive functions”. 《Annu Rev Psychol》 64: 135–68. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750. PMC 4084861. PMID 23020641. Core EFs are inhibition [response inhibition (self-control – resisting temptations and resisting acting impulsively) and interference control (selective attention and cognitive inhibition)], working memory, and cognitive flexibility (including creatively thinking "outside the box," seeing anything from different perspectives, and quickly and flexibly adapting to changed circumstances). ... EFs and prefrontal cortex are the first to suffer, and suffer disproportionately, if something is not right in your life. They suffer first, and most, if you are stressed (Arnsten 1998, Liston et al. 2009, Oaten & Cheng 2005), sad (Hirt et al. 2008, von Hecker & Meiser 2005), lonely (Baumeister et al. 2002, Cacioppo & Patrick 2008, Campbell et al. 2006, Tun et al. 2012), sleep deprived (Barnes et al. 2012, Huang et al. 2007), or not physically fit (Best 2010, Chaddock et al. 2011, Hillman et al. 2008). Any of these can cause you to appear to have a disorder of EFs, such as ADHD, when you do not. You can see the deleterious effects of stress, sadness, loneliness, and lack of physical health or fitness at the physiological and neuroanatomical level in prefrontal cortex and at the behavioral level in worse EFs (poorer reasoning and problem solving, forgetting things, and impaired ability to exercise discipline and self-control). ...
    EFs can be improved (Diamond & Lee 2011, Klingberg 2010). ... At any age across the life cycle EFs can be improved, including in the elderly and in infants. There has been much work with excellent results on improving EFs in the elderly by improving physical fitness (Erickson & Kramer 2009, Voss et al. 2011) ... Inhibitory control (one of the core EFs) involves being able to control one's attention, behavior, thoughts, and/or emotions to override a strong internal predisposition or external lure, and instead do what's more appropriate or needed. Without inhibitory control we would be at the mercy of impulses, old habits of thought or action (conditioned responses), and/or stimuli in the environment that pull us this way or that. Thus, inhibitory control makes it possible for us to change and for us to choose how we react and how we behave rather than being unthinking creatures of habit. It doesn’t make it easy. Indeed, we usually are creatures of habit and our behavior is under the control of environmental stimuli far more than we usually realize, but having the ability to exercise inhibitory control creates the possibility of change and choice. ... The subthalamic nucleus appears to play a critical role in preventing such impulsive or premature responding (Frank 2006).
     
  • Karila L, Wéry A, Weinstein A, Cottencin O, Petit A, Reynaud M, Billieux J (2014). “Sexual addiction or hypersexual disorder: different terms for the same problem? A review of the literature”. 《Curr. Pharm. Des.》 20 (25): 4012–20. doi:10.2174/13816128113199990619. PMID 24001295. Sexual addiction, which is also known as hypersexual disorder, has largely been ignored by psychiatrists, even though the condition causes serious psychosocial problems for many people. A lack of empirical evidence on sexual addiction is the result of the disease's complete absence from versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. ... Existing prevalence rates of sexual addiction-related disorders range from 3% to 6%. Sexual addiction/hypersexual disorder is used as an umbrella construct to encompass various types of problematic behaviors, including excessive masturbation, cybersex, pornography use, sexual behavior with consenting adults, telephone sex, strip club visitation, and other behaviors. The adverse consequences of sexual addiction are similar to the consequences of other addictive disorders. Addictive, somatic and psychiatric disorders coexist with sexual addiction. In recent years, research on sexual addiction has proliferated, and screening instruments have increasingly been developed to diagnose or quantify sexual addiction disorders. In our systematic review of the existing measures, 22 questionnaires were identified. As with other behavioral addictions, the appropriate treatment of sexual addiction should combine pharmacological and psychological approaches. 
  • Pitchers KK, Vialou V, Nestler EJ, Laviolette SR, Lehman MN, Coolen LM (February 2013). “Natural and drug rewards act on common neural plasticity mechanisms with ΔFosB as a key mediator”. 《The Journal of Neuroscience33 (8): 3434–42. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4881-12.2013. PMC 3865508. PMID 23426671. Drugs of abuse induce neuroplasticity in the natural reward pathway, specifically the nucleus accumbens (NAc), thereby causing development and expression of addictive behavior. ... Together, these findings demonstrate that drugs of abuse and natural reward behaviors act on common molecular and cellular mechanisms of plasticity that control vulnerability to drug addiction, and that this increased vulnerability is mediated by ΔFosB and its downstream transcriptional targets. ... Sexual behavior is highly rewarding (Tenk et al., 2009), and sexual experience causes sensitized drug-related behaviors, including cross-sensitization to amphetamine (Amph)-induced locomotor activity (Bradley and Meisel, 2001; Pitchers et al., 2010a) and enhanced Amph reward (Pitchers et al., 2010a). Moreover, sexual experience induces neural plasticity in the NAc similar to that induced by psychostimulant exposure, including increased dendritic spine density (Meisel and Mullins, 2006; Pitchers et al., 2010a), altered glutamate receptor trafficking, and decreased synaptic strength in prefrontal cortex-responding NAc shell neurons (Pitchers et al., 2012). Finally, periods of abstinence from sexual experience were found to be critical for enhanced Amph reward, NAc spinogenesis (Pitchers et al., 2010a), and glutamate receptor trafficking (Pitchers et al., 2012). These findings suggest that natural and drug reward experiences share common mechanisms of neural plasticity 
  • Beloate LN, Weems PW, Casey GR, Webb IC, Coolen LM (February 2016). “Nucleus accumbens NMDA receptor activation regulates amphetamine cross-sensitization and deltaFosB expression following sexual experience in male rats”. 《Neuropharmacology》 101: 154–64. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.09.023. PMID 26391065. S2CID 25317397. 
  • Meule A, Gearhardt AN (September 2014). “Food addiction in the light of DSM-5”. 《Nutrients》 6 (9): 3653–71. doi:10.3390/nu6093653. PMC 4179181. PMID 25230209. 
  • Grant JE, Potenza MN, Weinstein A, Gorelick DA (September 2010). “Introduction to behavioral addictions”. 《Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse》 36 (5): 233–241. doi:10.3109/00952990.2010.491884. PMC 3164585. PMID 20560821. Naltrexone, a mu-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of alcoholism and opioid dependence, has shown efficacy in controlled clinical trials for the treatment of pathological gambling and kleptomania (76–79), and promise in uncontrolled studies of compulsive buying (80), compulsive sexual behavior (81), internet addiction (82), and pathologic skin picking (83). ... Topiramate, an anti-convulsant which blocks the AMPA subtype of glutamate receptor (among other actions), has shown promise in open-label studies of pathological gambling, compulsive buying, and compulsive skin picking (85), as well as efficacy in reducing alcohol (86), cigarette (87), and cocaine (88) use. N-acetyl cysteine, an amino acid that restores extracellular glutamate concentration in the nucleus accumbens, reduced gambling urges and behavior in one study of pathological gamblers (89), and reduces cocaine craving (90) and cocaine use (91) in cocaine addicts. These studies suggest that glutamatergic modulation of dopaminergic tone in the nucleus accumbens may be a mechanism common to behavioral addiction and substance use disorders (92). 
  • Vassoler FM, Sadri-Vakili G (2014). “Mechanisms of transgenerational inheritance of addictive-like behaviors”. 《Neuroscience》 264: 198–206. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.07.064. PMC 3872494. PMID 23920159. However, the components that are responsible for the heritability of characteristics that make an individual more susceptible to drug addiction in humans remain largely unknown given that patterns of inheritance cannot be explained by simple genetic mechanisms (Cloninger et al., 1981; Schuckit et al., 1972). The environment also plays a large role in the development of addiction as evidenced by great societal variability in drug use patterns between countries and across time (UNODC, 2012). Therefore, both genetics and the environment contribute to an individual's vulnerability to become addicted following an initial exposure to drugs of abuse. ...
    The evidence presented here demonstrates that rapid environmental adaptation occurs following exposure to a number of stimuli. Epigenetic mechanisms represent the key components by which the environment can influence genetics, and they provide the missing link between genetic heritability and environmental influences on the behavioral and physiological phenotypes of the offspring.
     
  • Mayfield RD, Harris RA,1, Schuckit MA (May 2008) "Genetic factors influencing alcohol dependence" PMID 18362899
  • Kendler KS, Neale MC, Heath AC, Kessler RC, Eaves LJ (May 1994). “A twin-family study of alcoholism in women”. 《Am J Psychiatry》 151 (5): 707–15. doi:10.1176/ajp.151.5.707. PMID 8166312. 
  • Clarke TK, Crist RC, Kampman KM, Dackis CA, Pettinati HM, O'Brien CP, Oslin DW, Ferraro TN, Lohoff FW, Berrettini WH (2013). “Low frequency genetic variants in the μ-opioid receptor (OPRM1) affect risk for addiction to heroin and cocaine”. 《Neuroscience Letters》 542: 71–75. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2013.02.018. PMC 3640707. PMID 23454283. 
  • Hall FS, Drgonova J, Jain S, Uhl GR (December 2013). “Implications of genome wide association studies for addiction: are our a priori assumptions all wrong?”. 《Pharmacology & Therapeutics》 140 (3): 267–79. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.07.006. PMC 3797854. PMID 23872493. 
  • Lewis M (October 2018). Longo DL, 편집. “Brain Change in Addiction as Learning, Not Disease”. 《The New England Journal of Medicine》 379 (16): 1551–1560. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1602872. PMID 30332573. Addictive activities are determined neither solely by brain changes nor solely by social conditions ... the narrowing seen in addiction takes place within the behavioral repertoire, the social surround, and the brain — all at the same time. 
  • Enoch, Mary (2011). “The role of early life stress as a predictor for alcohol and drug dependence”. 《Psychopharmacology》 214 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1007/s00213-010-1916-6. PMC 3005022. PMID 20596857. 
  • Spear LP (June 2000). “The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations”. 《Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews》 24 (4): 417–63. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.461.3295. doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(00)00014-2. PMID 10817843. S2CID 14686245. 
  • Hammond CJ, Mayes LC, Potenza MN (April 2014). “Neurobiology of adolescent substance use and addictive behaviors: treatment implications”. 《Adolescent Medicine》 25 (1): 15–32. PMC 4446977. PMID 25022184. 
  • Catalano RF, Hawkins JD, Wells EA, Miller J, Brewer D (1990). “Evaluation of the effectiveness of adolescent drug abuse treatment, assessment of risks for relapse, and promising approaches for relapse prevention”. 《The International Journal of the Addictions》 25 (9A–10A): 1085–140. doi:10.3109/10826089109081039. PMID 2131328. 
  • Perepletchikova F, Krystal JH, Kaufman J (November 2008). “Practitioner review: adolescent alcohol use disorders: assessment and treatment issues”. 《Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines》 49 (11): 1131–54. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01934.x. PMC 4113213. PMID 19017028. 
  • Yuan TF, Li A, Sun X, Ouyang H, Campos C, Rocha NB, Arias-Carrión O, Machado S, Hou G, So KF (2015). “Transgenerational Inheritance of Paternal Neurobehavioral Phenotypes: Stress, Addiction, Ageing and Metabolism”. 《Mol. Neurobiol.》 53 (9): 6367–76. doi:10.1007/s12035-015-9526-2. hdl:10400.22/7331. PMID 26572641. S2CID 25694221. 
  • Hyman SE, Malenka RC, Nestler EJ (2006). “Neural mechanisms of addiction: the role of reward-related learning and memory”. 《Annu. Rev. Neurosci.》 29: 565–98. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113009. PMID 16776597. 
  • Steiner H, Van Waes V (January 2013). “Addiction-related gene regulation: risks of exposure to cognitive enhancers vs. other psychostimulants”. 《Prog. Neurobiol.》 100: 60–80. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.10.001. PMC 3525776. PMID 23085425. 
  • Kim Y, Teylan MA, Baron M, Sands A, Nairn AC, Greengard P (February 2009). “Methylphenidate-induced dendritic spine formation and DeltaFosB expression in nucleus accumbens”. 《Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA》 106 (8): 2915–20. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.2915K. doi:10.1073/pnas.0813179106. PMC 2650365. PMID 19202072. 
  • Nestler EJ (January 2014). “Epigenetic mechanisms of drug addiction”. 《Neuropharmacology》. 76 Pt B: 259–68. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.04.004. PMC 3766384. PMID 23643695. Short-term increases in histone acetylation generally promote behavioral responses to the drugs, while sustained increases oppose cocaine's effects, based on the actions of systemic or intra-NAc administration of HDAC inhibitors. ... Genetic or pharmacological blockade of G9a in the NAc potentiates behavioral responses to cocaine and opiates, whereas increasing G9a function exerts the opposite effect (Maze et al., 2010; Sun et al., 2012a). Such drug-induced downregulation of G9a and H3K9me2 also sensitizes animals to the deleterious effects of subsequent chronic stress (Covington et al., 2011). Downregulation of G9a increases the dendritic arborization of NAc neurons, and is associated with increased expression of numerous proteins implicated in synaptic function, which directly connects altered G9a/H3K9me2 in the synaptic plasticity associated with addiction (Maze et al., 2010).
    G9a appears to be a critical control point for epigenetic regulation in NAc, as we know it functions in two negative feedback loops. It opposes the induction of ΔFosB, a long-lasting transcription factor important for drug addiction (Robison and Nestler, 2011), while ΔFosB in turn suppresses G9a expression (Maze et al., 2010; Sun et al., 2012a). ... Also, G9a is induced in NAc upon prolonged HDAC inhibition, which explains the paradoxical attenuation of cocaine's behavioral effects seen under these conditions, as noted above (Kennedy et al., 2013). GABAA receptor subunit genes are among those that are controlled by this feedback loop. Thus, chronic cocaine, or prolonged HDAC inhibition, induces several GABAA receptor subunits in NAc, which is associated with increased frequency of inhibitory postsynaptic currents (IPSCs). In striking contrast, combined exposure to cocaine and HDAC inhibition, which triggers the induction of G9a and increased global levels of H3K9me2, leads to blockade of GABAA receptor and IPSC regulation.
     
  • Blum K, Werner T, Carnes S, Carnes P, Bowirrat A, Giordano J, Oscar-Berman M, Gold M (2012). “Sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll: hypothesizing common mesolimbic activation as a function of reward gene polymorphisms”. 《Journal of Psychoactive Drugs》 44 (1): 38–55. doi:10.1080/02791072.2012.662112. PMC 4040958. PMID 22641964. It has been found that deltaFosB gene in the NAc is critical for reinforcing effects of sexual reward. Pitchers and colleagues (2010) reported that sexual experience was shown to cause DeltaFosB accumulation in several limbic brain regions including the NAc, medial pre-frontal cortex, VTA, caudate, and putamen, but not the medial preoptic nucleus. Next, the induction of c-Fos, a downstream (repressed) target of DeltaFosB, was measured in sexually experienced and naive animals. The number of mating-induced c-Fos-IR cells was significantly decreased in sexually experienced animals compared to sexually naive controls. Finally, DeltaFosB levels and its activity in the NAc were manipulated using viral-mediated gene transfer to study its potential role in mediating sexual experience and experience-induced facilitation of sexual performance. Animals with DeltaFosB overexpression displayed enhanced facilitation of sexual performance with sexual experience relative to controls. In contrast, the expression of DeltaJunD, a dominant-negative binding partner of DeltaFosB, attenuated sexual experience-induced facilitation of sexual performance, and stunted long-term maintenance of facilitation compared to DeltaFosB overexpressing group. Together, these findings support a critical role for DeltaFosB expression in the NAc in the reinforcing effects of sexual behavior and sexual experience-induced facilitation of sexual performance. ... both drug addiction and sexual addiction represent pathological forms of neuroplasticity along with the emergence of aberrant behaviors involving a cascade of neurochemical changes mainly in the brain's rewarding circuitry. 
  • Salamone JD (1992). “Complex motor and sensorimotor functions of striatal and accumbens dopamine: involvement in instrumental behavior processes”. 《Psychopharmacology》 107 (2–3): 160–74. doi:10.1007/bf02245133. PMID 1615120. S2CID 30545845. 
  • Kauer JA, Malenka RC (November 2007). “Synaptic plasticity and addiction”. 《Nature Reviews. Neuroscience》 8 (11): 844–58. doi:10.1038/nrn2234. PMID 17948030. S2CID 38811195. 
  • Witten IB, Lin SC, Brodsky M, Prakash R, Diester I, Anikeeva P, 외. (December 2010). “Cholinergic interneurons control local circuit activity and cocaine conditioning”. 《Science》 330 (6011): 1677–81. Bibcode:2010Sci...330.1677W. doi:10.1126/science.1193771. PMC 3142356. PMID 21164015. 
  • Jones S, Bonci A (2005). “Synaptic plasticity and drug addiction”. 《Current Opinion in Pharmacology》 5 (1): 20–25. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2004.08.011. PMID 15661621. 
  • Eisch AJ, Harburg GC (2006). “Opiates, psychostimulants, and adult hippocampal neurogenesis: Insights for addiction and stem cell biology”. 《Hippocampus》 16 (3): 271–86. doi:10.1002/hipo.20161. PMID 16411230. S2CID 23667629. 
  • Kourrich S, Rothwell PE, Klug JR, Thomas MJ (2007). “Cocaine experience controls bidirectional synaptic plasticity in the nucleus accumbens”. 《J. Neurosci.》 27 (30): 7921–28. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1859-07.2007. PMC 6672735. PMID 17652583. 
  • Kalivas PW, Volkow ND (August 2005). “The neural basis of addiction: a pathology of motivation and choice”. 《The American Journal of Psychiatry》 162 (8): 1403–13. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.8.1403. PMID 16055761. 
  • Floresco SB, Ghods-Sharifi S (February 2007). “Amygdala-prefrontal cortical circuitry regulates effort-based decision making”. 《Cerebral Cortex》 17 (2): 251–60. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.335.4681. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhj143. PMID 16495432. 
  • Perry CJ, Zbukvic I, Kim JH, Lawrence AJ (October 2014). “Role of cues and contexts on drug-seeking behaviour”. 《British Journal of Pharmacology》 171 (20): 4636–72. doi:10.1111/bph.12735. PMC 4209936. PMID 24749941. 
  • Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wang GJ, Swanson JM, Telang F (2007). “Dopamine in drug abuse and addiction: results of imaging studies and treatment implications”. 《Arch. Neurol.》 64 (11): 1575–79. doi:10.1001/archneur.64.11.1575. PMID 17998440. 
  • Berridge KC (April 2012). “From prediction error to incentive salience: mesolimbic computation of reward motivation”. 《Eur. J. Neurosci.》 35 (7): 1124–43. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.07990.x. PMC 3325516. PMID 22487042. Here I discuss how mesocorticolimbic mechanisms generate the motivation component of incentive salience. Incentive salience takes Pavlovian learning and memory as one input and as an equally important input takes neurobiological state factors (e.g. drug states, appetite states, satiety states) that can vary independently of learning. Neurobiological state changes can produce unlearned fluctuations or even reversals in the ability of a previously learned reward cue to trigger motivation. Such fluctuations in cue-triggered motivation can dramatically depart from all previously learned values about the associated reward outcome. ... Associative learning and prediction are important contributors to motivation for rewards. Learning gives incentive value to arbitrary cues such as a Pavlovian conditioned stimulus (CS) that is associated with a reward (unconditioned stimulus or UCS). Learned cues for reward are often potent triggers of desires. For example, learned cues can trigger normal appetites in everyone, and can sometimes trigger compulsive urges and relapse in addicts.
    Cue-triggered ‘wanting’ for the UCS
    A brief CS encounter (or brief UCS encounter) often primes a pulse of elevated motivation to obtain and consume more reward UCS. This is a signature feature of incentive salience.
    Cue as attractive motivational magnets
    When a Pavlovian CS+ is attributed with incentive salience it not only triggers ‘wanting’ for its UCS, but often the cue itself becomes highly attractive – even to an irrational degree. This cue attraction is another signature feature of incentive salience ... Two recognizable features of incentive salience are often visible that can be used in neuroscience experiments: (i) UCS-directed ‘wanting’ – CS-triggered pulses of intensified ‘wanting’ for the UCS reward; and (ii) CS-directed ‘wanting’ – motivated attraction to the Pavlovian cue, which makes the arbitrary CS stimulus into a motivational magnet.
     
  • Edwards S (2016). 〈Reinforcement principles for addiction medicine; from recreational drug use to psychiatric disorder〉. 《Neuroscience for Addiction Medicine: From Prevention to Rehabilitation - Constructs and Drugs》. 《Prog. Brain Res.》. Progress in Brain Research 223. 63–76쪽. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.07.005. ISBN 978-0-444-63545-7. PMID 26806771. An important dimension of reinforcement highly relevant to the addiction process (and particularly relapse) is secondary reinforcement (Stewart, 1992). Secondary reinforcers (in many cases also considered conditioned reinforcers) likely drive the majority of reinforcement processes in humans. In the specific case of drug addition, cues and contexts that are intimately and repeatedly associated with drug use will often themselves become reinforcing ... A fundamental piece of Robinson and Berridge's incentive-sensitization theory of addiction posits that the incentive value or attractive nature of such secondary reinforcement processes, in addition to the primary reinforcers themselves, may persist and even become sensitized over time in league with the development of drug addiction (Robinson and Berridge, 1993). 
  • Berridge KC, Kringelbach ML (May 2015). “Pleasure systems in the brain”. 《Neuron》 86 (3): 646–64. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.018. PMC 4425246. PMID 25950633. 
  • Nestler EJ, Barrot M, Self DW (September 2001). “DeltaFosB: a sustained molecular switch for addiction”. 《Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.》 98 (20): 11042–46. Bibcode:2001PNAS...9811042N. doi:10.1073/pnas.191352698. PMC 58680. PMID 11572966. Although the ΔFosB signal is relatively long-lived, it is not permanent. ΔFosB degrades gradually and can no longer be detected in brain after 1–2 months of drug withdrawal ... Indeed, ΔFosB is the longest-lived adaptation known to occur in adult brain, not only in response to drugs of abuse, but to any other perturbation (that doesn't involve lesions) as well. 
  • Nestler EJ (October 2008). “Review. Transcriptional mechanisms of addiction: role of DeltaFosB”. 《Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences》 363 (1507): 3245–55. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0067. PMC 2607320. PMID 18640924. Recent evidence has shown that ΔFosB also represses the c-fos gene that helps create the molecular switch – from the induction of several short-lived Fos family proteins after acute drug exposure to the predominant accumulation of ΔFosB after chronic drug exposure – cited earlier (Renthal et al. in press). The mechanism responsible for ΔFosB repression of c-fos expression is complex and is covered below. ...
    Examples of validated targets for ΔFosB in nucleus accumbens ... GluR2 ... dynorphin ... Cdk5 ... NFκB ... c-Fos
     
    Table 3
  • Traynor J (March 2012). “μ-Opioid receptors and regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins: from a symposium on new concepts in mu-opioid pharmacology”. 《Drug Alcohol Depend》 121 (3): 173–80. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.10.027. PMC 3288798. PMID 22129844. 
  • Walker DM, Cates HM, Heller EA, Nestler EJ (February 2015). “Regulation of chromatin states by drugs of abuse”. 《Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.》 30: 112–21. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2014.11.002. PMC 4293340. PMID 25486626. Studies investigating general HDAC inhibition on behavioral outcomes have produced varying results but it seems that the effects are specific to the timing of exposure (either before, during or after exposure to drugs of abuse) as well as the length of exposure 
  • Petry NM, Rehbein F, Gentile DA, Lemmens JS, Rumpf HJ, Mößle T, Bischof G, Tao R, Fung DS, Borges G, Auriacombe M, González Ibáñez A, Tam P, O'Brien CP (September 2014). “An international consensus for assessing internet gaming disorder using the new DSM-5 approach”. 《Addiction》 109 (9): 1399–406. doi:10.1111/add.12457. PMID 24456155. 
  • Torres G, Horowitz JM (1999). “Drugs of abuse and brain gene expression”. 《Psychosom Med》 61 (5): 630–50. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.326.4903. doi:10.1097/00006842-199909000-00007. PMID 10511013. 
  • Hampton WH, Hanik I, Olson IR (2019). “Substance Abuse and White Matter: Findings, Limitations, and Future of Diffusion Tensor Imaging Research”. 《Drug and Alcohol Dependence》 (영어) 197 (4): 288–298. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.02.005. PMC 6440853. PMID 30875650. Despite this progress, our ability to predict, diagnose, and track addiction in humans based on brain images has been relatively limited. The difficulty elucidating such outcomes may be partly due to a relative dearth of research considering neural white matter, which constitutes over half of human brain volume and plays a vital role in governing communication between cortical areas (Fields, 2008). Diffusion mag- netic resonance imaging has emerged as a method to non-invasively examine white matter in the human brain and relate such connectivity to substance abuse and addictive behaviors (Suckling and Nestor, 2017) 
  • Chen CC, Yin SJ. (Oct 2008) "Alcohol abuse and related factors in Asia". PMID: 19012127
  • Mak KK, Lai CM, Watanabe H. (Nov 2014) "Epidemiology of internet behaviors and addiction among adolescents in six Asian countries". PMID: 25405785
  • Peacock A, Leung J, Larney S. (Oct 2018) "Global statistics on alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use: 2017 status report." PMID: 29749059
  • Manubay JM, Muchow C, Sullivan MA (March 2011). “Prescription drug abuse: epidemiology, regulatory issues, chronic pain management with narcotic analgesics”. 《Primary Care》 38 (1): 71–90. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2010.11.006. PMC 3328297. PMID 21356422. 
  • Cheetham A, Allen NB, Yücel M, Lubman DI (August 2010). “The role of affective dysregulation in drug addiction”. 《Clin Psychol Rev》 30 (6): 621–34. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.005. PMID 20546986. 
  • Genovese JE, Wallace D (December 2007). “Reward sensitivity and substance abuse in middle school and high school students”. 《J Genet Psychol》 168 (4): 465–69. doi:10.3200/GNTP.168.4.465-469. PMID 18232522. S2CID 207640075. 
  • Dawe S, Loxton NJ (May 2004). “The role of impulsivity in the development of substance use and eating disorders”. 《Neurosci Biobehav Rev》 28 (3): 343–51. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.03.007. PMID 15225976. S2CID 24435589. 

nimh.nih.gov

pewresearch.org

psu.edu

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu

recoveryanswers.org

samhsa.gov

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

surgeongeneral.gov

addiction.surgeongeneral.gov

unodc.org

utah.edu

learn.genetics.utah.edu

washingtonpost.com

web.archive.org

  • “질병분류목록 :: 정신활성물질의 사용에 의한 정신 및 행동 장애(F10-F19)”. 질병분류 정보센터. 313-315쪽. 2017년 9월 3일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 9월 3일에 확인함. 
  • American Society for Addiction Medicine (2012). “Definition of Addiction”. 2018년 6월 14일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 9월 3일에 확인함. 
  • “American Board of Medical Specialties recognizes the new subspecialty of addiction medicine” (PDF). 《American Board of Addiction Medicine》. 2016년 3월 14일. 2021년 3월 21일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2016년 4월 3일에 확인함. Sixteen percent of the non-institutionalized U.S. population age 12 and over – more than 40 million Americans – meets medical criteria for addiction involving nicotine, alcohol or other drugs. This is more than the number of Americans with cancer, diabetes or heart conditions. In 2014, 22.5 million people in the United States needed treatment for addiction involving alcohol or drugs other than nicotine, but only 11.6 percent received any form of inpatient, residential, or outpatient treatment. Of those who do receive treatment, few receive evidence-based care. (There is no information available on how many individuals receive treatment for addiction involving nicotine.)
    Risky substance use and untreated addiction account for one-third of inpatient hospital costs and 20 percent of all deaths in the United States each year, and cause or contribute to more than 100 other conditions requiring medical care, as well as vehicular crashes, other fatal and non-fatal injuries, overdose deaths, suicides, homicides, domestic discord, the highest incarceration rate in the world and many other costly social consequences. The economic cost to society is greater than the cost of diabetes and all cancers combined. Despite these startling statistics on the prevalence and costs of addiction, few physicians have been trained to prevent or treat it.
     
  • “What are risk factors and protective factors?”. National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2020년 4월 30일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 12월 13일에 확인함. 
  • “Adverse Childhood Experiences”. 《samhsa.gov》. Rockville, Maryland, United States: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2016년 10월 9일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2016년 9월 26일에 확인함. 
  • “Environmental Risk Factors”. 《learn.genetics.utah.edu》. 2018년 9월 17일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2018년 9월 17일에 확인함. 
  • SAMHSA. “Risk and Protective Factors”. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. 2016년 12월 8일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2016년 12월 19일에 확인함. 
  • “Infographic – Risk Factors of Addiction | Recovery Research Institute”. 《www.recoveryanswers.org》. 2016년 12월 17일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2016년 12월 19일에 확인함. 
  • American Psychiatric Association (2013). “Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders” (PDF). American Psychiatric Publishing. 1–2쪽. 2015년 8월 15일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2015년 7월 10일에 확인함. Additionally, the diagnosis of dependence caused much confusion. Most people link dependence with "addiction" when in fact dependence can be a normal body response to a substance. 
  • Insel, Thomas. “Transforming Diagnosis”. National Institute of Mental Health. 2013년 5월 29일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2015년 6월 17일에 확인함. 
  • Slade T, Johnston A, Teesson M, Whiteford H, Burgess P, Pirkis J, Saw S (May 2009). “The Mental Health of Australians 2: Substance Use Disorders in Australia” (PDF). Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra. 2020년 8월 18일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2021년 5월 6일에 확인함. 
  • Volkow, Nora (2016년 3월 31일). “A Major Step Forward for Addiction Medicine”. 《National Institute on Drug Abuse》. National Institutes of Health. 2016년 4월 5일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2016년 4월 3일에 확인함. Only about 10 percent of the 21 million Americans who meet the need for care for an alcohol or drug use disorder receive any form of treatment, and much of the treatment available does not meet standards for evidence-based care. There are many attitudinal and systemic reasons for this treatment gap, including stigma against treating people with addictions and institutional barriers to providing or funding addiction treatment. ... A major milestone was reached on March 14, 2016, when the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) formally announced recognition of the field of Addiction Medicine as a medical subspecialty. ... In a statement issued to mark this milestone, ABAM President Robert J. Sokol summed up its significance: 'This landmark event, more than any other, recognizes addiction as a preventable and treatable disease, helping to shed the stigma that has long plagued it. It sends a strong message to the public that American medicine is committed to providing expert care for this disease and services designed to prevent the risky substance use that precedes it.' 

webcitation.org

wikipedia.org

ko.wikipedia.org

  • According to a review of experimental animal models that examined the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of epigenetic marks that occur in addiction, alterations in histone acetylation – specifically, di-acetylation of lysine residues 9 and 14 on histone 3 (i.e., H3K9ac2 and H3K14ac2) in association with BDNF gene promoters – have been shown to occur within the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), testes, and sperm of cocaine-addicted male rats.[30] These epigenetic alterations in the rat mPFC result in increased BDNF gene expression within the mPFC, which in turn blunts the rewarding properties of cocaine and reduces cocaine self-administration.[30] The male but not female offspring of these cocaine-exposed rats inherited both epigenetic marks (i.e., di-acetylation of lysine residues 9 and 14 on histone 3) within mPFC neurons, the corresponding increase in BDNF expression within mPFC neurons, and the behavioral phenotype associated with these effects (i.e., a reduction in cocaine reward, resulting in reduced cocaine-seeking by these male offspring).[30] Consequently, the transmission of these two cocaine-induced epigenetic alterations (i.e., H3K9ac2 and H3K14ac2) in rats from male fathers to male offspring served to reduce the offspring's risk of developing an addiction to cocaine.[30] 2018년 기준 neither the heritability of these epigenetic marks in humans nor the behavioral effects of the marks within human mPFC neurons has been established.[30]